- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: March 25, 2021
- Case #: 19–292
- Judge(s)/Court Below: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion 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.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner was shot by Respondents, police officers, after they approached her for questioning related to an arrest warrant. Because Respondents were believed to be carjackers, Petitioner entered her vehicle and subsequently fled, where Respondents then fired at Petitioner's vehicle and struck Petitioner twice. Petitioner sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and alleged that the shooting was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment for Respondents and the Appellate Court affirmed, where they held that continued flight by a suspect after being shot by police negates a Fourth Amendment seizure claim. The Supreme Court reversed, and held that the use of physical force against a person with the intent to restrain, is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, even if the person is not subdued. The Court relied on precedent which established that when the Fourth Amendment was drafted, even the slightest physical contact was considered constructive detention that would effectuate a seizure if the force was accompanied by the intention to restrain. Where such intent is present, the seizure lasts as long as force is applied, unless the person submits. The Court found that Respondents seized Petitioner by shooting her with the intent to restrain. VACATED and REMANDED.