You grab for an arm, or rounds strike a fleeing driver, and they keep going. No custody, so no Fourth Amendment problem? Torres v. Madrid says otherwise.
What did Torres v. Madrid decide?
The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a Fourth Amendment seizure, even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. A shot that strikes a fleeing suspect who escapes is still a seizure — though the seizure lasts only as long as the force is applied.
Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306 (2021) — read the opinion on CourtListener.
What does Torres allow?
- Nothing new in terms of authority — Torres defines when the Fourth Amendment attaches, not what force you may use
- Force that is objectively reasonable under Graham and, for deadly force, Garner — that analysis is unchanged
What does it NOT allow?
- Treating a failed grab, strike, or shot as outside the Fourth Amendment because the person got away
- Assuming that no custody means no seizure to justify
- Reading Torres to expand force authority — it does the opposite by bringing more force under review
How it plays out on the street
The practical effect is a reporting rule. If you applied force intending to restrain someone, the Fourth Amendment is engaged from that moment — so justify it in the report even though the person ran off and you never got hands on them. Write the reasonableness the same way you would for any use of force: the threat you perceived, the crime at issue, active resistance or flight, and what you knew at that instant.
Frequently asked questions
Is a seizure only when someone is caught?
No. Force applied with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person doesn't submit — but it lasts only while the force is applied.
Does Torres change what force is allowed?
No. It changes when the Fourth Amendment applies. Whether the force was reasonable is still judged under Graham v. Connor and, for deadly force, Tennessee v. Garner.
Related cases
- Tennessee v. Garner (1985): When Is Deadly Force on a Fleeing Suspect Lawful?
- Graham v. Connor (1989): How Is Police Use of Force Actually Judged?
- Brendlin v. California (2007): Can a Passenger Challenge a Bad Traffic Stop?
Carry the rule, not the guesswork. Every case in StreetSense is broken down like this — bottom line, limits, and the exact citation — verified against the real opinion and available fully offline on shift. Start the free trial.
StreetSense is an educational reference for law enforcement, not legal advice. Federal cases set the floor — your state constitution, statutes, and department policy can impose stricter limits. Always follow your state’s rule and your agency’s policy.
Spot an error? Email nick@mnsindustriesllc.com with the post and your source. Corrections to the app go out over the air. How we verify.