Police can be sued for using excessive force during arrests 

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: April 15, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------


** Police Shooting Constitutes a Seizure That Can Be Challenged As Fourth Amendment Violation: Rules 5-3 Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, DC — In a 5-3 decision in Torres v. Madrid ([link removed]) , the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled ([link removed]) that a police shooting, even without an immediate arrest, constitutes a seizure that can be challenged as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against the use of excessive force during an arrest.

The case arose after Roxanne Torres, mistaking officers who approached her car with guns drawn for carjackers, fled from police only to be pursued and shot twice in the back. In filing a joint amicus brief ([link removed]) in Torres, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) argued that all uses of unreasonable and excessive force by police merit review under the Fourth Amendment, whether or not the victims of police brutality are arrested or temporarily elude capture.

“We live in an age in which ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect,’” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Early in the morning of July 15, 2014, Roxanne Torres dropped a friend off at an apartment complex in Albuquerque, N.M. After parking and exiting her car, Torres reentered and remained in the car with the engine running and the car doors locked. At that same time, four New Mexico State Police officers arrived at the complex intending to arrest a woman who was not related to Torres. Two of the officers approached Torres’s car and, with guns drawn, attempted to open the driver side door. Because the officers wore indistinguishable dark clothing and Torres did not hear what they shouted at her, Torres mistook them for carjackers and attempted to drive away ([link removed]) . After the car moved forward mere inches, the police opened fire on Torres and she accelerated away. The officers continued shooting
at Torres, firing 13 shots in all, two of which struck Torres in the back, paralyzing her right arm. Torres drove a short distance before she was forced by her injuries to stop. When a bystander refused to call police on her behalf, she found another car and drove it to a hospital, where she was airlifted to another hospital due to the seriousness of her injuries.

Torres was subsequently arrested on charges related to fleeing the police. ([link removed]) Torres, in turn, sued the police for using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures.” However, the trial and appeals courts ruled that because Torres was able to escape after being shot, she had not technically been “seized” by the police. In reversing this ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged ([link removed]) that “[b]rief seizures are seizures all the same. As applied to a person, the 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.”

Affiliate attorneys Jeffrey T. Green and John L. Gibbons of Sidley Austin LLP and Sarah O’Rourke Schrup of the Northwestern Supreme Court Law Clinic assisted in advancing the amicus arguments ([link removed]) in Torres.

The opinion ([link removed]) and amicus brief ([link removed]) in Torres v. Madrid are available at www.rutherford.org.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fpolice-shooting-constitutes-a-seizure-that-can-be-challenged-as-fourth-amendment-violation-rules-scotus Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fpolice-shooting-constitutes-a-seizure-that-can-be-challenged-as-fourth-amendment-violation-rules-scotus)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2021 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])