This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Court announced a narrow rule: a seizure by force lasts only as long as the application of force and requires intent to restrain.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (KELSI B. CORKRAN)
According to KELSI B. CORKRAN (Petitioner), police approached Ms. Torres, opened the car door without announcing themselves, fired 13 shots, and two bullets hit her in the back.
Respondent (Mr. Standridge)
According to Mr. Standridge, the “mere touch” rule should not be applied here because it arose in a very limited and narrow context.
Police Officers
According to Police officers, common‑law rules are not automatically elevated to constitutional prohibitions, especially when they are distorted beyond recognition when applied literally.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether shooting the tires of a car, yet allowing it to continue driving, would constitute a seizure.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas inquired whether the individual had thrown drugs away and then was later tackled.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether Justice Scalia’s view was being endorsed as precedent.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch questioned whether private‑citizen “mere touch” cases should be treated as police seizures.
Justice Gorsuch asked how the parties would respond to concerns that the proposed rule would create difficult line‑drawing problems.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh compared the issue to the GPS case, noting the similarity of intent to search and touching a body with intent to restrain.
- [1] 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdf, p. 28
- [3] 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdf, p. 40
- [4] 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdf, p. 44
- [5] 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdf, p. 65
- [6] 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdf, p. 72
What the Court decided
The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case.
The Court announced a narrow rule that a seizure by force lasts only as long as the application of force and requires intent to restrain.
Justice Gorsuch dissented, stating that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with his opinion.
Why it matters
Terms to know
- arrest
- to seize, to detain by power, to withhold; to hinder; to stop motion.
- seizure
- occurs only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 2e1d0400b69562cdcbe8-r1-7c7d2c11e5b26972.pdforal argument transcript
- 6dab5f162d7c3f8acf04-r1-4a0e77e7c462b1ca.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.