Torres v. Madrid (19-292)

argument 19-292

Torres v. Madrid

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 17m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the factual background of the Torres v. Madrid case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case nineteen two hundred ninety two Torres versus Madrid. Miss Corcoran?

Unknown 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In the early morning, respondents approached Roxanne Torres and her car and attempted to open the door without announcing they were police officers. Believing she was being carjacked, Miss Torres drove away and as she did, respondents fired thirteen shots at her. Two of the bullets hit her in the back. In rejecting Ms. Torres's claim that the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals did not consider whether respondents' use of deadly force was reasonable. By the court's reasoning. Respondents could have shot Miss Torres without any provocation and it would not have violated the Fourth Amendment because instead of remaining in the parking lot, she drove herself to the hospital.

Unknown 0:48

The Court of Appeals decision conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the word seizure at the time of the Fourth Amendment's adoption, and it conflicts with this court's precedent. In Hidari D, the court unanimously recognized that when a government officer inflicts physical force on a person with the intent to restrain them, that person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. regardless of whether that restraint is successful. As Hidari D explains, this is because the Fourth Amendment must protect today what it protected when it was adopted. And in determining what the Fourth Amendment protected at the founding, this court has always looked to the common law definitions of search and seizure and with respect to seizures of persons, the common law of arrest.

Unknown 1:30

The court explained in Atwater that an examination of the common law of arrest tells us what the founding generation would have understood to be an unreasonable seizure of a person. The common law of arrest leaves no doubt that when respondents' bullets entered Miss Torres's back, she was seized within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Several centuries worth of cases and commentary both before and after the founding uniformly recognize that physical force intended to restrain is an arrest even if the subject evades capture.

John G. Roberts 2:01

Um Ms Corcran, what if the uh police had uh shot out the tires of her car, but she was able to continue driving on? You know, there were those self sealing tires. uh that you can get. Would that be a seizure?

Unknown 2:18

No, it would not because there would be no application of physical force to her body.

John G. Roberts 2:24

Well uh I thought there was an element uh of uh uh intent to hamper movement to your analysis. So what if they were uh aiming at the uh uh wheels or tires, but uh hit her um um While while aiming somewhere else. Would that be a would that be a seizure?

Unknown 2:45

Uh Yes, it so th they have shot her tires and that h but they have shot at her tires but i but unintentionally hit her.

John G. Roberts 2:54

Yes.

Unknown 2:55

Yes, understood. Um so under those circumstances uh the answer would be yes because they have physically impacted her um through uh means intentionally applied. That's the test from Brouwer.

John G. Roberts 3:12

But they're applied to to the car really, not to her. It was only inadvertent that they struck struck her. I thought there was a I thought there was a requirement of uh uh hampering uh uh movement or laying of hands, uh, for that matter. And you wouldn't have that Um Or would you? Are you saying if it's completely inadvertent it still constitutes a seizure?

Unknown 3:39

No, because in that circumstance they are shooting at the car with the intent to restrain the driver. I think that would be akin to the barricade erected in Brower, uh, which this court held seized the driver there because he was seized by the instrumentality put in place or set in motion uh by the bul the police in order to uh effect the seizure.

John G. Roberts 4:04

Thank you, Council. Uh Justice Thomas.

Clarence Thomas 4:07

I thank you, Chief Justice. Uh yes, uh Ms. Cochran, um what d are there any cases at common law where the touching was there was a differenti uh distinction between touching with an in inanimate object or a projectile. as opposed to actual corporal touching or touching laying on his hand of hands as the Chief Justice mentioned.