No. 19-292
Roxanne Torres v. Janice Madrid, et al.
Tags: apprehension circuit-split civil-rights constitutional-law detention excessive-force fourth-amendment physical-force police-force seizure
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FourthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
SocialSecurity FourthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-12-13
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a 'seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Police officers shot Petitioner, but she drove away and temporarily eluded capture. In this excessive force suit, the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the ground that no Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurred. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that an officer’s application of physical force is not a seizure if the person upon whom the force is applied is able to evade apprehension. The question presented is: Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or must physical force be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the Tenth Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals hold?
Docket Entries
2021-04-26
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2021-03-25
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Barrett, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
2020-10-14
Argued. For petitioner: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.; and Rebecca Taibleson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Mark D. Standridge, Las Cruces, N. M.
2020-07-13
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 14, 2020.
2020-04-13
Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020.
2020-03-25
Reply of petitioner Roxanne Torres filed. (Distributed)
2020-03-16
ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED.
2020-03-09
Brief amici curiae of National Association of Counties, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2020-03-09
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
2020-03-02
Brief of respondents Janice Madrid, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2020-02-19
The record of the USCA 10th Circuit is available on PACER.
2020-02-19
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
2020-02-19
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.
2020-02-19
CIRCULATED
2020-02-07
Brief amici curiae of The Rutherford Institute and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
2020-02-07
Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico, et al. filed.
2020-02-07
Brief amicus curiae of Restore the Fourth, Inc. filed.
2020-02-07
Brief amici curiae of The American Association for Justice, the Cato Institute, et al. filed.
2020-02-07
Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
2020-02-07
Brief amici curiae of Fourth Amendment Scholars filed.
2020-02-07
Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. filed.
2020-02-06
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
2020-01-31
Brief of petitioner Roxanne Torres filed.
2020-01-31
Joint appendix filed.
2020-01-31
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 30, 2020.
2020-01-23
Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Janice Madrid, et al.
2020-01-23
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Roxanne Torres.
2019-12-18
Petition GRANTED.
2019-11-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
2019-11-25
Reply of petitioner Roxanne Torres filed.
2019-11-12
Brief of respondents Janice Madrid, et al. in opposition filed.
2019-10-10
Response Requested. (Due November 12, 2019)
2019-10-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-10-04
Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.
2019-10-04
Brief amici curiae of Fourth Amendment Scholars filed.
2019-10-03
Waiver of right of respondent Janice Madrid, et al. to respond filed.
2019-10-03
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
2019-10-02
Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico, filed.
2019-08-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 4, 2019)
2019-07-15
Application (19A45) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until August 30, 2019.
2019-07-08
Application (19A45) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 31, 2019 to August 30, 2019, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Attorneys
American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico
Constitutional Accountability Center
Fourth Amendment Scholars
Ginger D. Anders — Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Amicus
Janice Madrid, et al.
Mark Daniel Standridge — Jarmie & Rogers, P.C., Respondent
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, International Municipal Lawyers association, and National Sheriffs' Association
Barrett James Anderson — Cooley LLP, Amicus
Restore the Fourth, Inc.
Roxanne Torres
E. Joshua Rosenkranz — Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Petitioner
Kelsi Brown Corkran — Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Petitioner
The American Association for the Justice, Cato Institute, et al.
Anton Metlitsky — O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Amicus
The Rutherford Institute and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Jeffrey T. Green — Sidley Austin, Amicus
United States