In late March, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a Fourth Amendment case, Torres v. Madrid, on what is a Fourth Amendment "seizure." The question in Torres is whether a person is "seized" if the government uses physical force to try to stop someone but the force does not succeed in stopping her. The suspect was driving away from the police, a police officer shot at the car and injured her, but she continued to drive away. Was the shooting that injured her a Fourth Amendment "seizure"?
In this post, I want to discuss a really interesting question that I see underlying Torres: To what extent should the Court defer to common law rules in interpreting the Fourth Amendment when the context in which the rules were announced is very different from today?
I. Concept One Way, Consequences the Other
Before I get to the common law rules, I want to point out that there are lots of ways of resolving Torres without reference to the common law rules. When I first heard about the Torres case, my thoughts were drawn to two other issues; the concept of seizures and the practical implications of how to interpret it in this setting. Because I suspect many readers will focus on these arguments, I thought I would flag them and say how I think they may cut.
On one hand, the usual concept of a Fourth Amendment seizure would point to the answer being that no seizure occurred. In modern Fourth Amendment law, a seizure is ordinarily a taking of control of an item. An officer does not take control of a person when he shoots a person but she does not stop. So you might say, as the court below did, that a shooting without a taking control is not a seizure.
On the other hand, a pragmatist might say that whether a person is seized in this kind of situation will come up mostly in excessive force actions permitted by modern Supreme Court caselaw. If we rely on Fourth Amendment law for a sensible excessive force doctrine, it would make sense to call any shooting of a person a seizure. That way it can allow civil suits in federal court based on it. So you might say, as some amicus briefs filed in Torres say, that a shooting without a taking control should be a seizure for those practical reasons.
So far this is pretty interesting. The concept of seizures seems to point one way, and the practical consequences seem to point the other way. It's the kind of tension that makes for an interesting case.
II. Enter the Originalist Syllogism
But what makes Torres a really fascinating case, I think, is the role of originalism in settling the dispute. So now let's turn to the common law rules that are the focus of a lot of the briefing so far in the case. The brief of the petitioner, plaintiff Roxanne Torres, relies heavily on the following originalist syllogism:
(1) at the time of the Fourth Amendment's enactment, it was considered an "arrest" for an officer to apply physical force to a person in an unsuccessful effort to detain them;
(2) an arrest is a type of Fourth Amendment seizure; and therefore,
(3) it is a seizure for the government to apply physical force to a person in an unsuccessful effort to detain them.
This is a really interesting syllogism, I think, because it seems right in some ways but questionable in others.
On one hand, it's true that at the time of the Fourth Amendment's enactment, it generally was considered an "arrest" for an officer to apply physical force to a person in an unsuccessful effort to detain them. On the other hand, there's a twist here. Although the briefs filed so far don't flag this, my sense is that the common law context in which courts defined arrest in this way is quite different from the context today.
And that differences raises a really fun legal question for the originalist-inclined: When a concept was defined at common law in a specific context that is different from the context in which it arises today, should you apply the common law definition? Or does the different context suggest a need for a different definition?
III. The Forgotten Context of the Arrest Cases
In modern Fourth Amendment law, defining an arrest typically matters to determine if sufficient causes existed to make the act legal. An arrest requires probable cause. You need to know when an arrest occurred because you need to know if the government had sufficient cause to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
But the definition of arrest arose at common law in a very different context. Here's my tentative sense of the history, which I'll be happy to correct later if it turns out I misunderstood things:
The world of arrests at common law was dramatically different from what it looks like today. There were no professional police officers. Arrests could be made by private parties or else by part-time officialsmost often constables, but also sheriffs and watchmen who were supposed to make arrests and bring arrestees to the local justice of the peace. Most arrests were made by a warrant ordering the constable or other official to make the arrest. The warrant was a court order commanding that the constable or other official make the arrest and bring the prisoner to the judge.
But there was a problem. The part-time officials such as constables (and I'll just call them all constables for the sake of brevity) didn't have much interest in making arrests and detaining people after the arrest. It was dangerous and time-consuming work, and they in general weren't paid for it. Who wants to risk getting hurt arresting someone and forcibly bringing him to the local judge? There's not nothing in it for the constable. So part of the law regulating constables at common law was about forcing the constables to do their jobsto make arrests and to detain prisonersor else face civil suits or criminal punishment.
The law regulating constables had two features relevant here. First, the constable was required to at least try to execute the warrant. A constable who declined to do it could be charged with a crime or sued for neglect of duty.
And second, a constable who made an arrest but then let the prisoner go could be charged with the crime of escape (see 590-95) or sued in tort under the tort of escape. A constable was liable for escape when he made an arrest but then the prisoner went free, either because the constable intentionally let the prisoner go (called "voluntary escape") or the prisoner escaped despite the constable's efforts to detain him (called "negligent escape").
The law of negligent escape was pretty tough on constables. As one treatise summarized, "the only excuse" for not holding on to a prisoner was an "act of God or the public enemy"in other words, crazy unforeseeable situations. It sounds to me less like a negligence standard than strict liability.
To modern ears this all seems exceedingly weird. A modern crime of escape exists, but it punishes the prisoner who escaped from custody. As I read the history, though, the common law regulation of escape was different. It punished the constable who made the arrest but then either negligently or intentionally let the prisoner escape.
IV. Unsuccessful Uses of Physical Force Then and Now
Why does this matter? Well, maybe it doesn't. But it might matter, I think, because it means that the common law caselaw on the meaning of "arrests" arose in a very different context than we know today. The elements of escape required that an arrest had occurred first. As a result, courts typically defined what was an "arrest" when saying whether a constable was liable for escape.
This context is interesting, I think, because the practical consequence of defining arrest in that era would seem to be really different than the practical consequence of defining a seizure today. When courts defined arrests at common law, they were trying to figure out when a constable was sufficiently in charge of a person such that the constable was then subject to legal action for letting the person escape.
This could matter, I think, because in that setting it would have made no sense to require that the constable actually get the person to submit to the officer before saying an arrest had occurred. The underlying tort and crime was not doing a sufficient job keeping a person detained. A constable who announced an arrest and actually laid his hands on the person to be arrested, but then couldn't bring the person into a quasi-permanent detention, was guilty of the exact same thing as the underlying cause of actionletting the person go. It would make sense to treat those the same way.
Indeed, if I understand the context correctly, it's hard to imagine a different common law rule. If the common law had required actual submission before the law of escape applied, then civil and criminal liability would hinge on a metaphysical question: Was there a non-zero amount of time when the constable had control of the person to be arrested?
Consider an example. Imagine a constable has a warrant ordering him to arrest John Smith. The constable walks up to John Smith, announces Smith's arrest, and physically grabs Smith. Smith resists, breaks free, and runs away. Unless the rule were that these facts amounted to an arrest, the constable would not be liable for escape if the person had not been controlled for any time but would be liable if the person had been controlled even for a hundredth of a second. But in a melee between the constable and the arrestee, how could you possibly distinguish these two cases?
The more obvious place to draw the line in that common law doctrinal context would be that any touching (when the arrest was announced, at least) was enough to say there was an arrest. That way it didn't matter whether the constable had grabbed Smith and Smith instantly broke free or the constable grabbed Smith and held him for a fraction of a second or thirty seconds or thirty minutes. They would all be treated together, sensibly, as an escape that followed an arrest.
V. Does This Matter For Torres?
To me this all raises an interesting question: Does the different context between an "arrest" at common law and an arrest today mean that the common law definition should be looked at more skeptically for possible application today? Or do we say that an arrest is an arrest, and that the same definition should apply? To what extent does the different context call for a different rule?
I think there is at least some precedent in the Fourth Amendment excessive force context for saying that the context of old rules means that they should no longer apply uncritically today. That was the reasoning of the Court in Tennessee v. Garner when the Court rejected the common law feeling-felon rule for the reasonableness of stops. But assuming that was right in Garner, whether that same thinking should lead to similar skepticism of the common law definition of arrests is another question.
Anyway, I don't personally have a view of what the right answer is here. And it's possible that none of this will get flagged in the briefs or be something the Justices decide to take on. But I think it's a really interesting set of questions.
See the article here:
The Role of Originalism in Torres v. Madrid - Reason
- Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court. - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Protections for e-data clear Senate committee - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Court may let cops search smartphones - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Supreme Court to hear case on police searches of cellphones - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- What Scalia knows about illegal searches - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- Should police be allowed to search your smartphone - Video - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules police don't need warrants to search cars - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Local police: Updated vehicle-search law still requires probable cause - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Liberal Supreme Court Justice Comes To The Defense Of Scalia - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Smartphones and the Fourth Amendment - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained - Law - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges? - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Is Big Brother Listening? Applying the Fourth Amendment in an Electronic Age - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Magistrate waxes poetic while rejecting Gmail search request - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- License reader lawsuit can be heard, appeals court rules - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Seize the Rojo - Video - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- NSA Spying Has a Disproportionate Effect on Immigrants - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Motorists sue Aurora, police in 2012 traffic stop after bank robbery - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]
- Judge Says NSA Phone Surveillance Likely Unconstitutional - Video - May 21st, 2014 [May 21st, 2014]
- New York Attorney Heath D. Harte Releases a Statement on Fourth Amendment Rights - May 22nd, 2014 [May 22nd, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment Rights - Video - May 23rd, 2014 [May 23rd, 2014]
- Bangor Area School District teachers vote no to random drug - May 24th, 2014 [May 24th, 2014]
- I Don't Care About The Contitution, Take Your Fourth Amendment And Shove It The Hills Hotel - Video - May 27th, 2014 [May 27th, 2014]
- Lonestar1776 at Illegal Checkpoint 80 Miles Inside Border - Standing UP & Pushing Back! pt 2/2 - Video - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Suit charges Daytona Beach's rental inspection program violates civil rights - September 3rd, 2014 [September 3rd, 2014]
- 4th Amendment - Laws.com - September 4th, 2014 [September 4th, 2014]
- YOU CAN ARREST ME NOW (cops refuse, steal phone) - Video - September 7th, 2014 [September 7th, 2014]
- The Feds Explain How They Seized The Silk Road Servers - September 8th, 2014 [September 8th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Does obtaining leaked data from a misconfigured website violate the CFAA? - September 9th, 2014 [September 9th, 2014]
- Defence asks judge in NYC to toss out bulk of evidence in Silk Road case as illegally obtained - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Family of a mentally ill woman files lawsuit against San Mateo Co. after deadly shooting - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Minnesota Supreme Court upholds airport drug case decision - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Law Talk - Obamacare Rollout; Fourth Amendment, NSA Spying Stop & Frisk DUI Check Points lta041 - Video - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters - September 16th, 2014 [September 16th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Apples dangerous game - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- Judge expounds on privacy rights - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment By Maison Erdman - Video - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids - September 22nd, 2014 [September 22nd, 2014]
- The chilling loophole that lets police stop, question and search you for no good reason - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs - September 27th, 2014 [September 27th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina - September 29th, 2014 [September 29th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit on the mosaic theory and Smith v. Maryland - October 1st, 2014 [October 1st, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule - October 2nd, 2014 [October 2nd, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court takes case on duration of traffic stops - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure, Racial Bias: The American Law Journal on the Philadelphia CNN-News Affiliate WFMZ Monday, October 6 ... - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Argument preview: How many brake lights need to be working on your car? - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- The 'Barney Fife Loophole' to the Fourth Amendment - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure: A New Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Promo - Video - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project - Video - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- Lubbock Liberty Workshop With Arnold Loewy On The Fourth Amendment - Video - October 5th, 2014 [October 5th, 2014]
- Feds Hacked Silk Road Without A Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Starts Term with Fourth Amendment Case - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Argument analysis: A simple answer to a deceptively simple Fourth Amendment question? - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Feds Say That Even If FBI Hacked The Silk Road, Ulbricht's Rights Weren't Violated - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment - Video - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Leggett sides with civil liberties supporters - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Search & Seizure / Car Stops: A 'New' Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4 - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid - October 11th, 2014 [October 11th, 2014]
- Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net - October 13th, 2014 [October 13th, 2014]
- Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment? - October 14th, 2014 [October 14th, 2014]
- Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment? - October 19th, 2014 [October 19th, 2014]
- When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer? - October 21st, 2014 [October 21st, 2014]
- Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account - October 24th, 2014 [October 24th, 2014]
- EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video - October 25th, 2014 [October 25th, 2014]
- FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance - October 30th, 2014 [October 30th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ... - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment - Video - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights - Video - November 5th, 2014 [November 5th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Magistrate issues arrest warrants for 17 years but is new to probable cause - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]