Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Torres v. Madrid

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2023 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentExcessive ForceQualified ImmunityHeck v. Humphreysection 1983excessive forceFourth Amendment seizure

Facts

State police agents in unmarked vehicles approached Roxanne Torres while she sat in a running, locked vehicle near an apartment they were visiting to serve an arrest warrant on someone else. They shouted commands but did not announce themselves as police, and when Torres drove forward, both officers fired 15 shots over about seven seconds. Some shots hit the front and side of the vehicle, and five were fired at the rear of the vehicle, with one bullet striking Torres in the back. Torres later pleaded no contest to aggravated flight from a law-enforcement officer and assault upon a peace officer.

Issue

Whether Torres's Section 1983 excessive-force claims based on shots fired after her vehicle had passed the officers were barred by Heck because of her no-contest pleas, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the theory that it was not clearly established that a person who escapes is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Also, whether the court of appeals should decide in the first instance whether the rear-window shots were reasonable under clearly established law.

Rule

Heck bars a Section 1983 claim only when success on that claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction or sentence. An excessive-force claim is not necessarily inconsistent with a conviction for assaulting or endangering an officer when the plaintiff claims the officer used too much force in response or used force after the need for force had disappeared. In qualified-immunity analysis, courts may consider only facts knowable to the officers at the time of the conduct; facts learned after the incident ends are irrelevant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Officer Lena Ortiz stepped into a parking-lot lane as Devin Cole suddenly accelerated his pickup toward her. Ortiz fired twice as the truck came forward, then fired three more shots after the truck had already passed her and was moving away; one later shot entered through the rear window. Devin later pleaded guilty to assault on a peace officer based on driving toward Ortiz.

If Devin brings a § 1983 excessive-force claim limited to the three later shots, what is the strongest argument against dismissing the claim under Heck?

Explanation. Heck bars a § 1983 claim only if success would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction. Under the majority opinion, an excessive-force claim may proceed when it challenges force allegedly used after the need for force disappeared, even if a conviction may foreclose a challenge to the initial justified force. Devin's conviction for driving toward the officer may be consistent with a narrower claim attacking only the later shots into the rear of the vehicle. (Derived from Torres v. Madrid (n.d.).)