JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I believe the case you're referring to is Torres v. Madrid. The decision is here (pdf):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf
The first few paragraphs pretty much sums it up.

What is interesting is that the majority holds that a seizure or arrest occurs regardless of whether it was successful. If that is the view, can someone be found to have resisted an arrest?

If someone is shot and doesn't give up, the arrest still happened. Does shot #2 become it's own separate arrest? If each shot is it's own arrest and a medical witness determines if #1 was a mortal wound, do the rest become excessive?
 
SCOTUS just ruled in favor of a plaintiff who was shot. They tied shootings to the 4th Amendment right to be secure in their person. This means the shooting now has to be justifiable by being reasonably objective and that seizure is warranted.
 
I believe the case you're referring to is Torres v. Madrid. The decision is here (pdf):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf
The first few paragraphs pretty much sums it up.

After reading through it, lady was "suffering from methamphetamine withdrawals" and not aware of her surroundings when she fled from police....well holy shi t, she could take permanent dirt nap and I wouldn't care, tweekers.
 
What is interesting is that the majority holds that a seizure or arrest occurs regardless of whether it was successful. If that is the view, can someone be found to have resisted an arrest?

If someone is shot and doesn't give up, the arrest still happened. Does shot #2 become it's own separate arrest? If each shot is it's own arrest and a medical witness determines if #1 was a mortal wound, do the rest become excessive?
Regarding the scenario in your first sentence, it will probably become known as the "Torres Gambit". If it was, in fact, an unconstitutional attempted arrest or detainment, then the act of fleeing or resisting may be justified. Of course if the attempted arrest or detainment is justified and constitutional, fleeing or resisting would result in additional charges.
Regarding the scenario in your second sentence, if the suspect was under continuous pursuit, the second shot may be a continuation of a unconstitutional arrest or detainment. With enough time between shots and the suspect not being continuously and obvious pursuit, a second shot meeting all other use of force requirements may be justified. Which shot was the fatal one would be up to Quincy.
Just my early thoughts.
 
Seattle-

A lawsuit filed by a 74-year-old Seattle man who was held at gunpoint and painfully handcuffed by police in his own home claims the department has a "policy, practice and custom" of using "welfare checks" to enter people's homes without warrants.
 
TC coverage of this slope rapidly turning into a double-diamond slalom...

Constitution? Due process? This is the kind of stuff that happens in other countries that don't respect the peoples' Rights.


But remember, no one is coming for your guns. Just like they're 'committed to transparency' on the border crisis.:rolleyes:

$.02 Worth,
Boss
 
MONDAY, MAY 17


Red Flag

The ruling in the case, Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157, came May 17.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America and the affiliated Gun Owners Foundation, praised the new decision.


In Cady v. Dombrowski the Supreme Court held in 1973 that police may conduct warrantless searches related to "community caretaking functions,"

Worried he might be suicidal, his wife asked police to conduct a welfare check. The husband went to a local hospital briefly after police assured him they wouldn't take his two handguns.

After he left, they seized his guns without a warrant, telling the wife his life and others could be in danger if they left the guns in the home. The police refused to return the weapons and Caniglia sued, arguing the community caretaking exception should not apply inside "the home–the most protected of all private spaces."
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court is "properly reject[ing] the broad 'community caretaking' theory."

At the same time, he noted that the case implicates "another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called 'red flag' laws that some States are now enacting."

Such laws, he wrote, "enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons."

Although this particular decision does not address those issues, "provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us."
 
This was the thread I should have posted this to instead. Oh well helping bump with good news:

I think this is the right thread I'm resurrecting for today's SUPCO 9-0 decision.






Lars brings up a good point in this:
 
This decision will save the lives of a lot of people, because I most definitely would shoot, without question, any intruder in my home, operating out of the belief that if they entered my home without my knowledge or permission it was with intent to harm my family or myself.
 
9-0 smackdown. Didn't expect that. I'll bet Bloomberg, the Hoggster, Gabby, and the Space Man didn't see that coming either.

-E-
Probably not on their radar honestly. the case involved guns only because that is what they took, but it was a 4th amendment decision about taking any kind of property without a warrant. it is a big win regardless of the fact it involved police taking guns.
 
Probably not on their radar honestly. the case involved guns only because that is what they took, but it was a 4th amendment decision about taking any kind of property without a warrant. it is a big win regardless of the fact it involved police taking guns.

Agreed.

Anti-gun PDs, DAs, et. al., will just lie to get a warrant, or find a amenable court to get the warrant, and then they will confiscate. ATF, DEA & FBI lie all the time to get warrants/etc.
 
4. This case also implicates another body of law that pe-titioner glossed over: the so-called "red flag" laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§18125–18148 (West Cum.Supp. 2021); Fla. Stat. §790.401(4) (Cum. Supp. 2021);Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, §131T (2021). They typi-cally specify the standard that must be met and the proce-dures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under theFourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.

 
4. This case also implicates another body of law that pe-titioner glossed over: the so-called "red flag" laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§18125–18148 (West Cum.Supp. 2021); Fla. Stat. §790.401(4) (Cum. Supp. 2021);Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, §131T (2021). They typi-cally specify the standard that must be met and the proce-dures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under theFourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.

It's encouraging that SCOTUS made the connection, but the decision in this case has no bearing on red flag laws yet. Unfortunately, some poor soul will need a red flag taken out on them, then they will need to sue and take the case to the supreme court to get a decision that has a direct effect on those awful laws.
 
I'm a big supporter of our LEO personnel, but that was unnecessarily brutal and demeaning to an old man with handicaps. If an officer has to handle an old infirm man like a 20yo street thug, maybe they need to find a safer profession.

This was unnecessary.
 
I'm a big supporter of our LEO personnel, but that was unnecessarily brutal and demeaning to an old man with handicaps. If an officer has to handle an old infirm man like a 20yo street thug, maybe they need to find a safer profession.

This was unnecessary.
They could also apply their brain and consider context -- like an old guy my not hear well and might actually have physical problems. bubbleguming hell. Those cops suck.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top