Divided court issues bright-line ruling on Fourth Amendment seizures

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog  By Jeffrey Bellin on Mar 25, 2021

Against a backdrop of increasing national attention to police violence, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued an opinion in a closely watched criminal-procedure case that clarifies the meaning of the term “seizure.”

The Fourth Amendment provides important constitutional limits on abusive policing. These protections take shape in two ways: limits on the introduction of evidence obtained unconstitutionally, and civil suits against police who violate constitutional rights. But the Fourth Amendment does not regulate policing generally. It only prohibits unreasonable “searches and seizures.” That’s why the court’s ruling in Torres v. Madrid preserving a broad understanding of the term “seizure” has important implications for regulating use of force by police.

The case concerned an attempt by two New Mexico police officers to stop a car driven by Roxanne Torres. The officers, who were trying to execute an arrest warrant for another person, approached Torres and her parked car. When they attempted to speak with her, Torres began driving away. Claiming to fear for their safety, the officers shot at the car, injuring Torres, who then drove off. The question the justices resolved on Thursday was whether this unsuccessful effort to stop Torres was a “seizure.” The officers claimed that people are seized only when they are stopped, while Torres kept going. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed, dismissing Torres’ civil rights claim against the officers for violating her Fourth Amendment rights.

In a 5-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority reversed, concluding that the officers seized Torres even though she subsequently fled. The outcome fits neatly into the closest precedent, the 1991 case California v. Hodari D. In that case, the court explained that “[t]he word ‘seizure’ readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful.” (Emphasis added.) Pointing to this and other language in that case, the chief justice notes in the Torres opinion that “[w]e largely covered this ground in California v. Hodari D.”

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/divided-court-issues-bright-line-ruling-on-fourth-amendment-seizures/

[Sled Dog]

So the Tenth Circus decided that it's okay for the cops to shoot people, if they fail to get the person to stop.  If they stop the person, then and only then do questions regarding the "reasonableness" of the seizure come under 4th Amendment scrutiny, according to these clowns?

A few years ago LA was alive with a super-manhunt of some ex-cop who had escaped custody.   Very dangerous.  So dangerous that a couple of idiot cops in Torrance who were assigned to watch one of this guy's possible apartments shot at and injured two women delivering papers in their old blue Toyota truck, because the suspect was thought to be driving a blue truck.

They both lived.  The Torrance police thought that if they offered the victims a new truck they'd be even stevens.  No, their attorney naturally wanted a justifiable million bucks, instead.   The trigger-happy cops should have been fired and charged with attempted murder, two counts each.  Didn't happen.

And then when the finally cornered the wanted man in a cabin up in Big Bear, they surrounded the place and the sheriffs immediately decided that the best thing for them was to use incendiary tear-gas to deliberately burn down the cabin, property owned by a law-abiding citizen who had no financial recourse for the loss of his $150k+ cabin.

And the cops can totally destroy your home, "searching" and don't have to pay a dime for repairs if they don't find anything.

Some things need to be fixed.   Law enforcement is too arrogant in this country.