Today #SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in Torres v. Madrid to decide whether law enforcement officers who shoot and wound someone have conducted a “seizure” under the #4thAmendment if they fail to capture that person after. Read the brief CAC filed: theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor… 
Two New Mexico police officers wanted to question Roxanne Torres as she sat in her parked car. In the darkness, Torres feared the officers were carjackers and began to drive away.
Then the officers shot her twice in the back. theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor…
Then the officers shot her twice in the back. theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor…
The police arrested Torres at the hospital during treatment for the serious wounds she suffered. She proceeded to sue, alleging that the officers used excessive force and violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions of “unreasonable seizures.” theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor…
In the brief @MyConstitution filed, we argue that the Constitution’s Framers would have understood its reference to “seizing” persons to incorporate the legal concept of an arrest. theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor…
Under the common law of the 18th century, any use of force for the purpose of detaining someone qualified as an arrest, whether or not the person eluded capture. theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor…
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to shield people and their property from arbitrary intrusion by government officials – so we must understand that the Founders’ idea of “arrest” also applies to police shootings today. theusconstitution.org/litigation/tor…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
