I would encourage you to read the opinion; it's a lot more nuanced than that. This bit struck me: Today’s majority disputes none of this. It accepts that a s

I would encourage you to read the opinion; it's a lot more nuanced than that. This bit struck me: Today’s majority disputes none of this. It accepts that a seizure of the inanimate objects mentioned in the Fourth Amendment (houses, papers, and effects) requires possession. Ante, at 4. And when it comes to persons, the majority agrees (as Hodari D. held) that a seizure in response to a “show of authority” takes place if and when the suspect submits to an officer’s possession. Ante, at 15. The majority insists that a different rule should apply only in cases where an officer “touches” the suspect. Here—and here alone—possession is not required. So, under the majority’s logic, we are quite literally asked to believe the officers in this case “seized” Ms. Torres’s person, but not her car, when they shot both and both continued speeding down the highway. He goes on to mention that the term "seizure" is used in reference to 4 objects in the 4th Amendment, and that prior case law forbids interpreting the same term to mean different things depending on the object being modified. From the opinion: To “[a]scrib[e] various meanings” to a single word, we have observed, is to “render meaning so malleable” that written laws risk “becom[ing] susceptible to individuated interpretation.” Ratzlaf, 510 U. S., at 143 (internal quotation marks omitted). I think I'm with Gorsuch here. While I do think the officers acted unreasonably and should be punished, the 4th Amendment doesn't seem to apply. You end up with weird and inconsistent cases. If an officer shoots at someone shooting at him, and ends up hitting a hostage in the house, has he arrested the hostage? Probably not, so now we have to add another layer of complexity in determining whether the officer intended to arrest that person, or "accidentally arrested" them. It just becomes incoherent. I also find it notable that the majority declines to comment on Gorsuch's hypotheticals like lasers or tear gas. Has everyone who's been tear gassed been arrested? What if the wind blows it a different direction? The resulting case law is going to be a mess. I agree that "unreasonable attempted seizure" should be illegal, there's a gap in the law there. I just think it's up to the legislative branch to fix that. The case law doesn't seem to support the majority opinion; it reads to me like they started with a conclusion and worked backwards.