2 historical Supreme Court cases

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 1/8

Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure”

under the 4th Amendment?

ANDREW HINTON · JUNE 27, 2020

On July 15, 2014, two New Mexico State Police officers

approached Mrs. Roxanne Torres as she hastily entered her

car in her parking garage. [1] As Mrs. Torres was under the

influence of methamphetamines, she claims that she believed

the police officers to be carjackers and attempted to quickly

speed away. Arguing that she endangered them in the process

of her escape, the officers fired 13 bullets at Mrs. Torres and

hit her twice before she was ultimately able to escape. [2]

From this, a pertinent question befalls the highest court in

the nation: does Mrs. Torres’ encounter constitute a seizure ?

Mrs. Torres filed a civil rights claim in federal court, claiming

that the police officers had used excessive force and had

violated her Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful

seizures. [3] The district court ruled—and the 10th Circuit

Court of Appeals affirmed—that the Fourth Amendment’s

protection against unlawful seizure was not applicable

because, as Torres was ultimately able to escape and wasn’t

apprehended by law enforcement until later, she wasn’t

technically “seized.” [4] This ruling might seem sound at first

glance, but it contradicts existing Supreme Court

jurisprudence on the matter. Moreover, this ruling sets an

extremely dangerous precedent of denying victims of police

brutality proper legal recourse based solely on whether or

not they were successfully able to flee.

There are two important cases from which federal

jurisprudence derives the definition and applicability of

seizures under the Fourth Amendment: United States v.

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 2/8

Mendenhall (1980) and California v. Hodari D. (1991). In

both cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the scope of

“seizures”, as they apply to the Fourth Amendment, extend

beyond that of merely an official arrest. For instance, in

United States v. Mendenhall, the Supreme Court found that a

seizure occurs when “in view of all of the circumstances

surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have

believed that he was not free to leave.” [5] Even if one were to

question whether Mrs. Torres fits the standard of a

“reasonable person” due to her being under the influence of

methamphetamines, it seems clear that, even with reduced

faculties, one would assume they were unable to simply end

the encounter if they were being fired upon. As such, under

this definition, it would be rather clear that a seizure had

taken place in the case of Mrs. Torres’ escape because the use

of deadly force would have made her believe that she was not

free to end the engagement at any time.

California v. Hodari D. was argued before the Supreme

Court in 1991. In this case, two police officers were on patrol

in an unmarked car in Oakland, California. The officers took

notice of a group of kids huddled around a red car and the

kids panicked and ran away once they saw the police officers.

The officers chased down one of these kids (Hodari D.) and,

just before one of the officers apprehended him, he disposed

of “what appeared to be a small rock” which later proved to

be crack cocaine. [6] Hodari D. argued that the evidence of

cocaine should be suppressed in trial because he was subject

to an unlawful seizure at the time it was discovered.

Here, the Supreme Court expressly divided efforts by police

to stop people into two categories. The first category

consisted of efforts involving a “show of authority”, which

included actions such as an order to stop or an officer placing

their hand upon their weapon. [7] This form of effort to stop

people was deemed to only be constituted as a seizure if there

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 3/8

people was deemed to only be constituted as a seizure if there

is “submission to an officer's ‘show of authority’ to restrain

the subject’s liberty.” [8] In the cases of Hodari D. and Mrs.

Torres, their respective interactions with law enforcement

would not have constituted seizures under the first category,

as neither individual submitted to the officer’s “show of

authority.” However, the second category of authoritative

effort to stop subjects, which constitutes a “quintessential

‘seizure of the person’ under Fourth Amendment

jurisprudence,” involves “the application of physical force,

however slight.” [9] In Hodari’s case, the officer didn’t apply

physical force until after he had already discarded the illegal

substances, so the evidence was ultimately not dismissed.

However, in the case of Mrs. Torres—given the use of

physical and even deadly force by police officers—precedent

dictates that this encounter clearly qualifies as a seizure.

If upheld, the Tenth Circuit Court's ruling would not only

shield police officers from ultimate liability in these cases,

but it would also forbid any inquiry into the wrongdoing of

the officer if the suspect escapes. The American Civil

Liberties Union phrased it well in their amicus curiae brief :

“If the Fourth Amendment is to govern meaningfully the

state’s application of physical force, each application should

be evaluated for its reasonableness, rather than categorically

exempting a large swath of dangerous physical encounters

from any Fourth Amendment constraints.” [10] This new

precedent would pose a particularly great threat to

communities of color, who are disproportionately likely to be

victims of police brutality. [11]

According to a study by the Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States, Latino men and

Black women are approximately 1.4 times as likely to be

killed by police as their white counterparts, while Black men

are about 2 5 times as likely as white men to be killed by

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 4/8

are about 2.5 times as likely as white men to be killed by

police force. [12] If any of these men or women were

otherwise able to escape law enforcement, they would be

denied the ability to contest the legality of the violence they

faced. The NAACP argues that “[b]y exempting a category

of police shootings from Fourth Amendment scrutiny, [this]

decision...will make it even more difficult to remedy state-

sponsored violence, thus exacerbating the reasonable fear of

such violence that continues to define the lived experiences

of too many African Americans.” [13] Indeed, Ashok

Chandran, NAACP Legal Defense Fund Assistant Counsel,

makes the case that “African Americans have borne the brunt

of police brutality throughout our nation’s history until the

present day” and that “[u]nduly narrowing the Fourth

Amendment to exclude obvious forms of police uses of force

from constitutional scrutiny will further endanger the lives of

many Black individuals and deprive them of relief in even the

most egregious cases.” [14]

Some may argue that other avenues of legal recourse exist for

victims of police brutality, even if law enforcement cannot be

found guilty of a Fourth Amendment violation. Protections

against excessive force by law enforcement can also be

covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. [15] However, in

many cases, the Fourth Amendment is the sole recourse for

these victims. The Fourteenth Amendment is only applicable

in the case of excessive force against a pretrial detainee

because the Due Process Clause prevents the deprivation of

liberty against these detainees without fair legal procedure.

[16] Mrs. Torres, however, was not a pretrial detainee. As

such, she and those in similar situations rely on the Fourth

Amendment as their source of protection against police

brutality. Specifically in Graham v. Connor (1989), the

Court affirmed that the Fourth Amendment ser ves as the

constitutional source of protection from cases of excessive

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 5/8

force which arise “during arrest, investigatory stop or other

seizure.” [17] Therefore, a failure to hear a Fourth

Amendment defense would deny the sole source of legal

recourse available to those like Mrs. Torres.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to

rectif y the legal misinterpretation of “seizures” set forth by

the Tenth Circuit Court. The new rule imposed by the

Circuit Court’s interpretation not only conflicts with

historical foundations of Fourth Amendment principles—

which have always intended to ser ve as a means of limiting

government intrusions on persons and property—but also

stands in direct opposition to the Court’s understanding of

seizures as laid out by cases like California v. Hodari D. and

United States v. Mendenhall. Even beyond that, this case is of

paramount importance because of the dangerous miscarriage

of justice that would ensue from establishing this new rule

which defines seizures by law enforcement. With police

brutality normalized within communities of color, the Tenth

Circuit Court’s ruling must be rejected. The Supreme Court

must ensure that potential victims of excessive force are, at

the very least, afforded the judicial inquiry into law

enforcement’s wrongdoing that they are due.

Edited by Crystal Foretia

[1] Torres v. Madrid, 769 F. App'x 654 (10th Cir. 2019)

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[ ] d d h ll 446 44 4

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 6/8

[5] United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553–54

(1980)

[6] California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991)

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] American Civil Liberties Union Brief of Amicus Curiae,

Torres v. Madrid, Docket No. 19-292 (2020)

[11] Amina Khan, “Getting killed by police is a leading cause

of death for young black men in America”, Los Angeles Times,

16 August 2019,

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-

shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men

(visited March 20, 2020)

[12] Frank Edwards et. al, “Risk of being killed by police use

of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex”

Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the

United States of America, 5 August 2019

[13] National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People Amicus Curiae Brief, Torres v. Madrid, Docket No.

19-292 (2020)

[14] LDF Submits Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to

Reaffirm Constitutional Protections for Citizens Shot by Police

Officers, NAACP Legal Defense Fund (2020), online at

https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-submits-amicus-

brief-urging-supreme-court-to-reaffirm-constitutional-

protections-for-citizens-shot-by-police-officers/ (visited

March 20, 2020)

[ ] h ll h “ d h h

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 7/8

PREVIOUS

Voter Rights Amidst Crisis: The Repercussions of COVID-19

NEXT

National Emergency Exemption: Patents in the Time of Coronavirus

[15] Mitchell Karsch, “Excessive Force and the Fourth

Amendment: When Does Seizure End?” 58 Fordham Law

Review 823 (1990)

[16] Ibid

[17] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Partners:

Cambridge University Law Society : Per Incuriam

University of Pennsylvania Undergraduate Law Journal

Trinity College Law Review

© 2015-2021

Columbia Undergraduate

Law Review

Contact Us

General:

[email protected]

Business Inquiries: Jennie

Yu [email protected]

10/28/21, 6:56 PM Torres v. Madrid: What Constitutes “Seizure” under the 4th Amendment? — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

https://www.culawreview.org/journal/torres-v-madrid-what-constitutes-seizure-under-the-4th-amendment 8/8