Brief Of The Rutherford Institute And National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner.
Argument: If the Fourth Amendment does not apply here, then Ms. Torres will have no remedy at all. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling means that objectively un-reasonable police action that seriously injured the target of that action is not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny simply because the officer’s attempt to detain the target is initially unsuccessful. This approach is incorrect, not least because it would deprive plaintiffs like Ms. Torres of any remedy for serious injuries suffered at the hands of police officers. The decision below contradicts this Court’s jurisprudence. Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit’s approach is inconsistent with the way this Court has reviewed excessive-force cases in the past. Graham specifically held that “all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard.” The Tenth Circuit’s ruling expands the unjustifiably significant disparity that already exists between liability for civilians and for police officers. This Court should recalibrate the balance in our society’s laws—more respect for individual liberty, and less accommodation of police excessive force.
Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: The Court has assessed the objective reasonableness of alleged civil liberties deprivations by law enforcement personnel for more than a century. The Court has applied the objective reasonableness test to excessive force cases. The Court’s reasoning in support of the objective reasonableness test is equally applicable to cases involving pretrial detainees.