Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that “[t]he application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.” Looking to founding-era understandings and common law antecedents, Roberts explained that the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable seizures of persons was historically linked to the common law of arrest, under which any application of physical force with intent to restrain constituted a completed arrest rather than a mere attempt. Roberts emphasized that accidental force or force applied for non-restraint purposes didn’t qualify, clarifying that “[a] seizure requires the use of force with intent to restrain, as opposed to force applied by accident or for some other purpose.” Roberts established that this evaluation relied on an objective standard, stating that “the appropriate inquiry is whether the challenged conduct objectively manifests an intent to restrain,” regardless of the officer’s subjective motivation or the suspect’s subjective perception.

Tracing the historical “mere-touch” rule back to decisions from English and early American common law, Roberts observed that courts uniformly held that the slightest application of physical force completed an arrest even if the suspect immediately escaped. Responding to arguments that an officer must touch a suspect by hand, Roberts reasoned that “[t]he required ‘corporal seising or touching the defendant's body’ can be as readily accomplished by a bullet as by the end of a finger.” Roberts rejected the officers’ proposed alternative test, which would’ve required an “intentional acquisition of physical control” for all Fourth Amendment seizures, explaining that while physical control describes seizures resulting from a show of authority or roadblocks, seizures by physical force carry a distinct common law pedigree that avoids line-drawing puzzles over when control is actually achieved. Applying these principles to the case, Roberts held that the officers applied physical force to Torres that objectively manifested an intent to restrain her movement when they fired their service weapons at her vehicle. As a result, Roberts found that “the officers seized Torres for the instant that the bullets struck her.”