When New Mexico police officers fired on Roxanne Torres in 2014, Torres attempted to sue under the Fourth Amendment. However, it was not clear whether or not Torres’s situation could be considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and so the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
What constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment? Jay Schweikert of Cato discusses seizures, physical force, and dicta in Torres v. Madrid.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Jay Schweikert: https://www.cato.org/people/jay-schweikert
Follow Jay Schweikert on Twitter @jay_schweikert
https://twitter.com/jay_schweikert
*******
Related Links & Differing Views:
SCOTUSblog: “Divided court issues bright-line ruling on Fourth Amendment seizures”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/divided-court-issues-bright-line-ruling-on-fourth-amendment-seizures/
The Federalist Society: “Torres v. Madrid Post-Decision SCOTUScast”
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/podcasts/torres-v-madrid-post-decision-scotuscast
Villanova Law Review: “Continuing Seizure and the Fourth Amendment”
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=vlr
Journal of Law and Criminology: “Fourth Amendment--Protection against Unreasonable Search and Seizure of the Person”
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6713&context=jclc
Catholic University Law Review: “The Antithetical Definition of Personal Seizure”
https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3200&context=lawreview
