Excessive Police Force and Fourth Amendment Seizure: Torres v. Madrid Supreme Court Analysis

Abstract

Media Literacy: Supreme Court Analysis Torres vs. Madrid entails two policemen Jannice and Williamson, who attempted to question Torres, who was suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. Torres did not pause to hear the policemen's arguments, and she hit the gas and fled away. The policemen fire at her using their pistons, but Torres did not slop. She was left wounded and managed to drive to a hospital only to be arrested the next day. Torres sued the police for using excessive force to arrest her based on the Fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This case concerns seizure where there is the use of force to arrest. The court allowed the lawyer to speak and acted in favor of his argument. The court is trying to find a remedy in the Due Process Clause if the case was not a violation of the fourth amendment seizure. The due process clause prohibits police from engaging in outrageous police actions despite not restraining or movement. Hence Torres's argument can win based on this clause. Unjustifiable shooting by police is a violation of the Due Process Clause. The tenth circuit court ruling protects police actions in case of possessive and physical seizures yet does not consider what course could be taken if the suspects flee. The tenth circuit court conflicts with the Fourth Amendment principles on seizures. The undisputable question is on a seizure. What counts as a seizure according to the fourth amendment? Can the police seize someone even if they do not successfully restrain them? Seizure is the mere grasping of an individual; it can also entail physical force by the law authorities....