The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) threw out a lower court’s ruling on a Vermont sergeant’s qualified immunity.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled in the case of Zorn v. Linton, claiming that Sgt. Jacob Zorn was not “entitled to qualified immunity” after a protester claimed her arm was injured when she was removed from a state capitol sit-in via the use of a wristlock. The SCOTUS reversed the decision and rejected the arguments alleging the use of excessive force.
“The Second Circuit concluded otherwise by reading Amnesty America to establish the general principle ‘that the gratuitous use of pain compliance techniques—such as a rear-wristlock—on a protestor who is passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.’ 135 F. 4th, at 35 (case below). But that principle, even assuming Amnesty America established it, lacks the ‘high degree of specificity’ needed to make it ‘clear’ to officers which actions violate the law. Wesby, 583 U. S., at 63 (internal quotation marks omitted). It does not ‘obviously resolve’ whether using a rear wristlock to move a noncompliant protester after repeated warnings violates the Fourth Amendment, id., at 64, as it fails to specify which circumstances make the use of force ‘gratuitous,'” the ruling reads.
“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,” it continues. “We grant his petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Second Circuit.”
The case began during a 2015 protest on Gov. Peter Shumlin’s inauguration day, where healthcare protesters stayed after the Capitol building closed. After warning the remaining protesters that they will be forcefully removed if they chose not to leave on their own, police moved in to clear the building.
“According to the opinion, protester Shela Linton remained seated and linked arms with others,” Fox News reported. “Zorn warned her he would have to use force, then took her arm, placed it behind her back, applied pressure to her wrist and lifted her to her feet. Linton later sued, alleging physical and psychological injuries.”
Naturally, the liberal justices dissented.
Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan believe the SCOTUS’s action was an “extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal” and added that a jury could have found that Zorn used excessive force against a passively resistant protester.
“A jury could find that Zorn violated Linton’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights,” wrote Sotomayor. “The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor even where there is no threat to officer safety or any other reason to do so.”
“That is plainly inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental guarantee that officers may only use ‘the amount of force that is necessary’ under the circumstances.’ Therefore, I respectfully dissent,” she concluded.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
Sierra Marlee is a millennial whose hunger for the truth in a world of fake news has led her to write. Marlee also contributes to BizPac Review.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.