Torres v. Madrid

In Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306, officers with the New Mexico State Police went to an apartment complex in Albuquerque to execute an arrest warrant for a person other than Roxanne Torres. At the complex, officers saw Torres near a vehicle and approached her. The officers were wearing tactical vests marked with police identification, but Torres later claimed she did not realize they were police and believed she was being attacked or carjacked.

Torres got into the vehicle and began to drive away. The officers fired their weapons at the vehicle. Torres was struck by gunfire but did not stop. She continued driving, left the scene, and was not immediately taken into custody by the officers who shot her. She later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The lower courts ruled against Torres on the theory that she had not been “seized” because she kept driving and escaped the officers’ control at the scene. The Supreme Court took the case to decide whether an officer’s intentional use of physical force can be a Fourth Amendment seizure even when the person does not submit and is not immediately stopped.

The issue in Torres v. Madrid was whether police “seize” a person under the Fourth Amendment when they intentionally apply physical force to the person’s body with the purpose of stopping or restraining the person, even if the person gets away.

In plain English, the question was this: if officers shoot a fleeing person in an attempt to stop her, and the bullets hit her but she keeps going, has a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred? Or does a seizure require the person to actually stop, submit, or be taken into custody?

The Supreme Court held that the application of physical force to a person’s body, with intent to restrain that person, is a Fourth Amendment seizure even if the force does not succeed in stopping the person. Because the officers allegedly shot Torres with the intent to stop her, and the bullets struck her, the Court held that she was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes at that moment.

The Court distinguished between two types of seizures. A seizure by show of authority, such as commands to stop or the display of police authority, generally requires submission by the person. If the person does not submit, there is no seizure based only on the show of authority. But a seizure by physical force is different. When an officer intentionally applies physical force to the body of a person in order to restrain that person, the seizure occurs when the force is applied, even if the person breaks away or escapes.

The Court also limited its ruling. Not every touching is a seizure. The force must be applied with the intent to restrain. Accidental contact, force applied for some purpose other than restraint, or a mere incidental touching is not automatically a Fourth Amendment seizure. The Court also did not decide whether the officers’ use of force against Torres was reasonable. The case established that a seizure occurred; the separate question of whether that seizure was constitutionally reasonable remained for further proceedings.

The practical rule from Torres v. Madrid is that an officer’s intentional use of physical force against a person for the purpose of stopping or restraining that person triggers Fourth Amendment analysis, even if the person does not stop.

For police officers, Torres v. Madrid means that an unsuccessful attempt to stop a person with intentional physical force can still count as a seizure. If an officer fires at a person to stop that person and the person is hit, the Fourth Amendment is implicated even if the person drives away, runs away, or is not immediately handcuffed.

This matters because Fourth Amendment reasonableness standards apply once a seizure occurs. Officers, detectives, and supervisors should not assume that there was “no seizure” simply because the person escaped. The key question is whether physical force was intentionally applied to the person’s body for the purpose of restraint.

The case does not say that every shooting or use of force is unconstitutional. It also does not decide whether the officers in Torres acted reasonably under the circumstances. It only answers the threshold seizure question. After Torres, the next legal question in a use-of-force case is still whether the force was reasonable under the facts known to the officers at the time.

In reports, investigations, and supervisory reviews, the facts surrounding the officer’s intent and the application of force matter. Officers should clearly document what they perceived, why they used force, what threat or resistance they were responding to, what commands were given if any, and whether the force was intended to stop or restrain the person. Those facts will be central to the Fourth Amendment analysis.

Torres v. Madrid is especially important in vehicle-flight and foot-pursuit situations where force is used but the suspect is not immediately captured. The constitutional analysis does not turn only on whether custody was completed at the scene. If intentional physical force hits the person and is used to restrain, a seizure has occurred, and the reasonableness of that force must be evaluated.