Western v. Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a passenger shot through the vehicle window at a traffic stop was not seized, relying on hostage cases
• declining to extend Fourth Amendment protections to “reasonably foreseeable” victim of officer's gunshot where victim was already seized by traffic stop and officer did not intend to shoot her but instead intended to shoot her passenger
• permitting a Bivens excessive force claim to proceed where the defendant was a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the alleged misconduct was shooting the plaintiff during an operation to arrest him out of his vehicle
• refusing to follow Flores where a shot did not intentionally terminate the freedom of movement of a passenger plaintiff but declining to rule on whether “a suspect must be physically struck by a bullet (or any other object) to state a claim for excessive force”
• “Nor have we held today that a suspect must be physically struck by a bullet (or any other object) to state a claim for excessive force.”
• “The district court ruled that Harkum could not prevail on her claim of excessive force because she was not ‘seized’ by Agent Braga within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment in the first instance. We agree.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).