Zorn v. Linton:  Officer who used wristlock to remove protester was entitled to qualified immunity from excessive force claim

By Greg Mermelstein, Deputy Director & General Counsel, Missouri Public Defender

            An officer who lifted a seated protester by her arms behind her back was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim since no “clearly established” law prohibited the practice, the U.S. Supreme Court held March 23 in Zorn v. Linton.

            Sheila Linton participated in a sit-in protest in Vermont’s state capitol.

            When police warned her that she would have to leave, she refused.

            Officer Jacob Zorn then took Linton’s arm, put it behind her back, placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her to her feet.  Linton was injured as a result.

            Linton sued Zorn under Sec. 1983 for use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.

            The District Court ruled Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity.

            The Second Circuit reversed, relying on a prior Circuit case that “gratuitous” use of a rear wristlock constitutes excessive force.

Holding

            The Supreme Court reversed, in a 6-3 per curiam opinion.

            “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under Sec. 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law”, the Court said.  “A right is clearly established when it is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood what he is doing violates that right.’”

            To find a right is “clearly established” generally requires a court to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was found to have violated the constitution, the Court said.

            Officers receive qualified immunity unless they could have “read” the case beforehand and known that it prohibited their specific conduct, the Court said.

            The case identified by the Second Circuit did not “clearly establish” that Zorn’s specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, the Court said.

            Reasonable officials would not have interpreted the Second Circuit case as holding that, after warning a protester to leave, using a routine wristlock to move them, without more, violated the constitution, the Court said.

            The Second Circuit read the prior case’s holding too generally, the Court said.

            The prior case lacked the “high degree of specificity” needed to make it “clear” to officers what actions violate the law, the Court said.

            Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer taking similar actions in similar circumstances was held to have violated the constitution, Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity, the Court concluded.

            Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.