U.S. Supreme Court widens ability to sue police for excessive force

Authored by reuters.com and submitted by WiReY_GuY
image for U.S. Supreme Court widens ability to sue police for excessive force

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the ability of people to sue police for excessive force, ruling in favor of a New Mexico woman who filed a civil rights lawsuit after being shot by officers she had mistaken for carjackers.

FILE PHOTO: View of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. November 4, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/

The 5-3 decision allowed the woman, Roxanne Torres, to pursue her lawsuit accusing New Mexico State Police officers Richard Williamson and Janice Madrid of violating the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on illegal searches and seizures even though she had not been immediately detained, or seized, in the incident.

The court determined that in order to sue for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to have been physically seized by law enforcement.

“We hold that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued,” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling.

Roberts was joined in the decision by the court’s three liberals and one of his fellow conservatives, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Three other conservatives justices dissented. The newest justice, conservative Amy Coney Barrett, did not participate because she had not yet joined the court when the case was argued in October.

In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment has always been defined as “taking possession of someone or something,” and he criticized the court’s contrary conclusion.

“That view is as mistaken as it is novel,” Gorsuch wrote.

The case will now return to lower courts, where the officers could seek to have the lawsuit dismissed on other grounds including the legal doctrine called qualified immunity that protects police and other types of government officials from civil litigation in certain circumstances.

In the 2014 incident, four officers arrived at an apartment complex in Albuquerque and approached Torres, who was sitting in a car. Torres said she fled when she saw people with guns approaching, thinking she was going to be carjacked. Madrid and Williamson fired 13 shots between them, hitting her twice in the back as she drove away in her car.

Torres continued driving but was arrested the next day after being treated in a hospital for her wounds. She was convicted of three criminal offenses, including fleeing from a law enforcement officer.

After Torres sued in a federal court in New Mexico in 2016, the judge dismissed the case, saying there could be no excessive force claim because a “seizure” had not occurred. The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in 2019, prompting Torres to appeal to the Supreme Court.

There is heightened public scrutiny of police conduct in the wake of protests in many cities last year against racism and police brutality. Rulings by the Supreme Court in other cases over police powers are due by the end of June.

savage4082 on March 25th, 2021 at 19:22 UTC »

Until you threaten their negligence/abuse of power with their pensions, the problem will only continue.

OneRougeRogue on March 25th, 2021 at 16:48 UTC »

“We hold that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued,” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling. Roberts was joined in the decision by the court’s three liberals and one of his fellow conservatives, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Three other conservatives justices dissented. The newest justice, conservative Amy Coney Barrett, did not participate because she had not yet joined the court when the case was argued in October.

Really surprised about this, although the SC didn't exactly rule in the woman's favor, they just ruled that her lawsuit can continue after lower courts dismissed it.

For context, a woman was sitting in her car when officers approached to search the apartment complex she lived in. Apparently they already had their guns drawn. The woman saw them in her rear or side-view mirrors (I think?) and didn't realize they were police officers. She saw the guns and thought armed carjackers were approaching her vehicle. She took off in the car and the police just started shooting into her vehicle, hitting her twice.

The SC appears to be ruling that using excessive force on someone in order to seize/search their property may violate the 4th ammendment, so they are allowing the case to continue in lower courts.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this case except what was explained on the article.

jayquanderulo on March 25th, 2021 at 16:26 UTC »

What is a cops actually training protocol when someone drives off? I don’t think your suppose to just open fire on someone driving away, even if they robbed a bank. Get in your own car, turn your blinking lights on, and follow them. The way our country views “legal murder” is bullshit.

Edit: Thank you to all the people explaining to me “cases” where cops can justify opening fire on someone. I think also for the most part lots of us are in favor that it’s pretty bullshit these reasonings.