Source: http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/2011StMULawBestBriefOfSecStewart
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:51:57+00:00

Document:
October Term 2010 BEAU RADLEY, Petitioner, v. FAIR COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT and ARTHUR GOODE, Respondents.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the Fourth Amendment protection against excessive force extends beyond initial seizure? If the Court were to apply a rule of continuing seizure to the Fourth Amendment protection against the use of excessive force, to what point beyond initial seizure should that protection extend?
____________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2010 _______________ No. 09-9100 _____________ BEAU RADLEY, Petitioner, v. FAIR COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT and ARTHUR GOODE, Respondents. __________________________________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT __________________________________ BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS __________________________________ OPINIONS BELOW __________________________________ The opinions of the District and Appeals Courts have not been reported. The opinions appear in the record.
SHOULD END WITH THE RELINQUISHMENT OF CUSTODY BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER OR OFFICERS.
A. Even if this Court were to allow the Fourth Amendment protection against excessive force to extend beyond initial seizure, the protection should end when custody of the arrestee has been relinquished by the arresting officer or officers.
Of the circuits that have adopted the “continuing seizure” doctrine, many have been reluctant to extend the protection to pretrial detainees subjected to excessive force once the detainee has left the custody of the arresting officer or officers. See Torres v. City of Madeira, 524 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008); McDowell v. Rogers, 863 F.2d 1302 (6th Cir. 1988); and Powell v. Gardner, 891 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1989). If this Court were to also adopt the “continuing seizure” doctrine, the decisions of these circuits should be the guide in determining where Fourth Amendment protection should end. The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Torres was supported by Ninth Circuit precedent and a broadening of this Court’s opinions. Torres, 524 F.3d at 1056. A seizure continues while the detainee remains in the custody of the arresting officers. Id. (quoting Robins v. Harum, 773 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir. 1985)). Fourth Amendment protection continues to apply when the detainee is in the custody of the arresting officer. Id. (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2001)). In the case of Torres, the excessive force concerned a mistake on the part of the officer in drawing her pistol rather than her Taser; however, the Fourth Amendment was held to be the correct standard of analysis since the detainee was still, by the court’s analysis, seized. Id. (citing Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) and Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971)). The Torres decision does not necessarily negate that initial seizure is a single act, it merely shows that the act of initial seizure can take several moments in time to complete. Id. From this perspective a “continuing seizure” analysis is appropriate, and deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.
initial seizure has concluded. Formal arraignment, on the other hand, can vary greatly between jurisdictions. Thus, holding Fourth Amendment to apply up until formal arraignment is just too broad of a rule.
PRAYER For the reasons stated above, Respondents pray that this Court affirm the decision of the court below.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Counsel for Respondents certifies that this brief has been prepared and served on all opposing counsel in compliance with the Rules of the Freshmen Moot Court Competition.
APPENDIX 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. U.S. CONST. amend. IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Corey Stewart, “Best Brief Contest Winner: Beau Radley v. Fair County Police Department and Arthur Goode 09-9100 Brief for Respondents,” St. Mary's Law Digital Repository, accessed April 24, 2019, http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/2011StMULawBestBriefOfSecStewart.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1
 v.