SCOTUS considers public trust and effective police protection in the age of digital media By Quinlyn Beaver, Jordan Conestabile, Richard Felt Cooper, Et al.
With increased national attention to questions of police violence and the means by which officers perform their jobs, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court should find itself involved in addressing questions related to police use of force. On October 14, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Torres v. Madrid.
This case questions whether a Fourth Amendment “seizure” has occurred when officers shoot someone while failing to detain them. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and it turns now to the Supreme Court to determine if a “seizure” has occurred when police officers succeed in shooting someone, but fail to detain the person at that time. While the federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit both sided with the officers against Torres’s claims, the existing Supreme Court precedent is less clear. In addition, three other federal Courts of Appeals have previously ruled that physical force that is unsuccessful can still constitute a seizure. In light of incidents of police violence giving way to protests, which have often led to further acts of violence, the Court’s ruling in this case could be incredibly important.
Photo from U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit
The case began in 2014 when New Mexico Police Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson arrived at an apartment building to arrest someone who was not Roxanne Torres. When the officers approached her, Torres ran into her car and started it. Torres, who was under the influence of methamphetamine, believed the two officers were actually carjackers. In an attempt to stop the suspect from fleeing, the officers shot her twice in the back. Torres fled, ultimately stole a different car, and drove 75 miles to a hospital to get treatment. She was arrested the next day after having been airlifted to a hospital in Albuquerque. Torres pleaded no contest to assault of a police officer, aggravated fleeing from law enforcement and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.
In 2016, Torres filed a civil-rights complaint against both officers arguing that the officers used excessive force in violation of Torres’s Fourth Amendment rights. The federal district court hearing the case ruled that because the force was unsuccessful in detaining Torres, no “seizure” occurred, and thus there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the use of physical force is not a seizure if the suspect of whom the force is applied “evades apprehension”.
The Fourth Amendment, in part, states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” The Fourth Amendment was established in order to ensure citizen privacy against unreasonable governmental infringements. In order for an induvial to obtain their rights under the Amendment, the conduct must fall within the guidelines established, this decision is ultimately up to the courts to decide, what constitutes a search or seizure.
At the heart of this case is the question of whether physical force used to detain a suspect must be successful to fall under the Fourth Amendment? While the district court that heard the case, as well as the Tenth Circuit on appeal (in addition to the D.C. Court of Appeals in a separate case) all ruled that force must be successful to count as a “seizure,” they are not the only courts to consider these questions. Previously, the Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts all ruled that an unsuccessful attempt to detain suspect by use of physical force constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
Due to these conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court’s ruling will have the chance to offer clarity and consistency to how various lower courts approach these questions. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for the Supreme Court in United States v. Mendenhall (1980) explained: “[A] person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” While this would seem to indicate the officers are likely to prevail, the issue is not quite that straight forward. In the 1991 case California v. Hodari D., Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, argued that unsuccessful physical attempts at detaining a suspect can still constitute a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Photo from New Mexico State Police
Taken together, these precedents do not offer clear guidance for how the case will be resolved. Moreover, Scalia’s opinion in Hodari D. relied heavily on an originalist approach to the Fourth Amendment. However, three of the Court’s current purported originalists—Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—all expressed doubts during oral arguments as to whether unsuccessful uses of force can really be considered “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan seemed firmly to support the proposition that the police shooting someone would legally count as a seizure. The outcome is likely to hinge on how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh ultimately decide, as both of them asked challenging questions to both sides in the case.
In the wake of increased media attention surrounding police misconduct, this issue has become a pressing public concern all across the United States. News outlets have begun drawing attention to highly publicized police shootings and abuses of power. Substantial unpredictably in the outcome of such instances have become the norm, leading to a decreased trust in law enforcement throughout communities. Public trust of law enforcement is of the utmost importance in order for effective policing and protection. As soon as the police are perceived to be held above the law or as unfair, their effectiveness is undermined. Overall, the public trust in government institutions has fallen at an alarming rate, with concerns of ability to safety perform their duties reaching a record high. Erroneous interpretations of the law, in particular the Fourth Amendment, hurts not only the victims of law enforcement misconduct but officers themselves. Lack of transparency and accountability leads to a loss of trust between citizens and police, undermining their ability to lead effectively.
Unfortunately, this pressing issue has begun to hit all too close to home for those in the Utica, NY area with recent misconducts being brought to light right here in our own backyard. With concerns arising regarding police misconduct, we can only anticipate a break in trust between law enforcement and the general public. Utica Police Chief Mark Williams stated at a news conference, “no person deserves to be mistreated by the police”, with an immediate removal of the officer in question from the force. By learning from communities all across the country, we must continuously advocate and push for transparency and accountability to ensure we are provided the safest environment to learn, grow and flourish in the community we call home. The conversations and advocacy that lie ahead are in no way easy, but they are some of great urgency and necessity.
Daniel Tagliarina is Pre-Law Advisor and Associate Professor of Political Science at Utica College .
Quinlyn Beaver, Jordan Conestabile, Richard Felt Cooper, Brandon Gowans, Breanna Hughes, Amanda Kendic, Jessica Ostrowski, and Snow Steel are Political Science students at Utica College
