Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

N.D.Ill.: Police shooting of bystander not a Fourth or due process claim, except for the "shocks the conscience" test

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Plaintiff's claim of being an accidentally shot bystander did not state a Fourth Amendment claim because he was not the person to whom the officers were attempting to apply force. Instead, the "shocks the conscience" standard (Rochin) applies, and plaintiff cannot meet it. Warfield v. City of Chicago, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54629 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2008): A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs only when there is a "governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied." Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596-97 (1989) (emphasis in original). The means of detention must be intentionally applied "to the object of the detention." Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 269 (3d Cir. 2000). "[A] Fourth Amendment seizure does not occur whenever there is a governmentally caused termination of an individual's freedom of movement (the innocent passerby), nor even whenever there is a governmentally caused and governmentally desired termination of an individual's freedom of movement (the fleeing felon), but only when there is governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on July 21, 2008 (boomark / email).