The case of Torres v. Madrid (2020) revolved around the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, specifically in relation to its "seizure" clause. Roxanne Torres was approached by two police officers while she was sitting in her car; mistaking them for carjackers due to their plain clothes and unmarked vehicle, she attempted to drive away. The officers fired 13 shots at her as she fled, hitting her twice but not stopping her escape. She later sued for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether a person can be considered "seized" if they evade capture after being shot by police. In a 5-3 decision, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett not participating because arguments were held prior to her confirmation, it ruled that an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is indeed a seizure under this amendment. This ruling clarified that any application of physical force with intent to restrain constitutes a seizure even if the individual does not submit and is not subdued.

In the dissenting opinion for Torres v. Madrid, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, argued that a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment requires physical control or submission to an assertion of authority. They contended that Ms. Torres was not seized when officers shot at her because she did not stop but instead fled from police in her car after being shot multiple times. The dissenters believed this interpretation is consistent with common law understanding of arrest and seizure which required either touching with intent to restrain or submission to show of authority from law enforcement officials. They also expressed concern about potential implications on future cases involving use-of-force claims against police officers if fleeing suspects who have been shot are considered "seized."