24 Mar New Supreme Court Qualified Immunity Case
Yesterday, in a 6-3 per curiam (unauthored) opinion, the Supreme Court in Zorn v. Linton summarily reversed the Second Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity for a police officer who was alleged to have engaged in excessive force based on his use of a rear wristlock on a non-violent protestor.
This case involves a group of about 200 protestors who staged a sit-in during the January 2015 inauguration of then-Governor Peter Shumlin. When the capitol closed to the public for the night, the police officers informed the protestors that they would be arrested for trespass if they did not leave. Around 30 protestors remained at this point. Some left, some were escorted out without force, but others, like Ms. Linton, refused to stand and leave and had to be forcibly removed.
After removing approximately a dozen protestors, the officers turned to Ms. Linton, and she remained seated with her arms interlocked with those of her fellow protestors. Officer Zorn unlinked her arm from another protester’s and put it in a rear wristlock, twisting her arm behind her back. She yelled “ow, ow, ow,” while Officer Zorn repeatedly asked her to “please stand up.” She responded, “I will not stand up.” Officer Zorn tried asking again and indicated he would need to use “more pain compliance” if she did not stand. She refused, so Officer Zorn placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her by her underarm. Once she was on her feet, she jerked her arms and fell back to the floor (in her complaint, she says due to the pain). Officer Zorn once again asked her to stand up, and when she refused, three officers picked her up and carried her outside.
She sued for excessive force under §1983, alleging physical injuries related to the wristlock as well as PTSD. The district court granted the officer qualified immunity and the Second Circuit reversed. In denying qualified immunity, the Second Circuit relied on Amnesty America v. West Hartford, 361 F. 3d 113 (2004), to conclude that it was clearly established that the “gratuitous use of a rear wristlock on a protester passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.”
The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Second Circuit, concluding that the Amnesty America case did not clearly establish the law. The Court noted that even if the case established the principle relied on by the Second Circuit, it “lacks the ‘high degree of specificity’ needed to make it ‘clear’ to officers which actions violate the law.” citing Wesby, 583 U. S., at 63. That is because the principle does not “obviously resolve whether using a rear wristlock to move a noncompliant protester after repeated warnings violates the Fourth Amendment.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that Amnesty America involved a wide range of allegations involving excessive force, which did include rear wristlocks, but also other things like ramming a protestor’s head into a wall and dragging another across the ground. The Court further distinguished the cases as the officers in Amnesty America also did not give protestors any warning that they would use force. The Supreme Court reasoned that a reasonable officer would not “interpret [Amnesty America] to establish that using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution.” And here, the Court emphasized that Officer Zorn repeatedly warned Ms. Linton of the impending force if she continued to resist.
Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a sufficiently similar case that violated the Constitution, the Supreme Court concluded the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The dissent argued the Amnesty America case was sufficiently similar to clearly establish the law, and even if it wasn’t, the decision was “not so clearly erroneous as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal.”
Click here to view the opinion.