Use of Force During Protest

This case did not address whether the use of force by Sergeant Zorn was reasonable but instead held that the law was not clearly established that “using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the U.S. Constitution.”

The United States Supreme Court outlined the events and interaction between Officer Zorn and Protester Linton as follows:

On January 8, 2015, Vermont hosted the inauguration for Governor Peter Shumlin in the capitol. ¹ About 200 protesters attended, and some of them staged a sit-in to demand universal healthcare. Shela Linton joined them. She planned to refuse to leave and anticipated being forcibly removed. “That’s the point of the sit-in part of the protest,” she later explained. Deposition of S. Linton in No. 5:18-cv-5 (D Vt., June 3, 2022), ECF Doc. 74-4, p. 127.

When the capitol closed to the public for the night, 29 protesters remained in the legislative chamber, sitting on the floor with their arms linked. At that point, police officers explained that they would arrest the protesters for trespass if they did not leave. The officers dealt with them one at a time; some stood up and were escorted out of the chamber without force, but others refused to stand and had to be lifted to their feet or dragged out.

After removing more than a dozen protesters, the officers turned to Linton. Sergeant Jacob Zorn crouched down to speak with her, but she remained seated with her arms interlocked with those of her fellow protesters. As Linton passively resisted, Zorn unlinked her arm from another protester’s, put it behind her back in a rear wristlock, and twisted her arm. Linton exclaimed “‘ow, ow, ow,’” while Zorn repeatedly implored her to “‘please stand up.’”  After Linton responded, “‘I will not stand up,’” Zorn told her that he would ask “‘one more time’” and then would use more pain compliance.  Linton refused, so Zorn placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her up by her underarm. Linton yelled as she stood up. Once on her feet, Linton continued to jerk her arms and fell back to the floor. Zorn asked her to stand up again, and when she did not, three officers picked her up by her arms and legs and carried her outside. Linton alleged resulting physical and psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder. (citations omitted).

Linton filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of Constitutional Rights, claiming that Sergeant Zorn had used excessive force in violation of her Fourth Amendment Right against an unreasonable seizure.

The Federal District Court granted Sergeant Zorn qualified immunity after finding that the law was not clearly established “at the time of the encounter that, in these circumstances, lifting Linton while putting pressure on her wrist violated the Fourth Amendment.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court citing, Amnesty America v. West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2^nd Cir. 2004) as clearly establishing that a “’gratuitous’ use of a rear wristlock on a protester passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.”

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court began by pointing out that “A right is clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable [officer] would have understood” that the routine wristlock to move a resistant protestor, after warning her, would violate the Fourth Amendment.   The Court continued to explain, “To find a right is clearly established, courts generally ‘need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated’ the Constitution.”

In simple terms the plaintiff, in this case Linton has to find a case with similar facts where a court held that using a wristlock on a resistant protestor, who had been warned that force would be used, was found to be unconstitutional.  A prior similar case from the Supreme Court or the officers, Circuit Court of Appeals would put an officer on notice not to commit similar acts. A significant trend among the Circuits with similar cases may also put the officer on notice.

The Court found that the Second Circuit, in using the Amnesty America case to find that the law was clearly established was wrong, concluding that Amnesty America did not establish that “Zorn’s. specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.” (emphasis added).

The Court detailed its view of the Amnesty America case and why it was not similar factually to what occurred here, writing:

Amnesty America, the court considered a wide range of allegations of excessive force. The officers rammed a protester’s head into a wall, dragged another protester across the ground, and used rear wristlocks on two more protesters to lift them up before throwing one of them to the ground. Nothing indicated that the officers gave the protesters any warning that they would use such force.

Amnesty America did not hold that any of those actions violated the Fourth Amendment, let alone all of them. Instead, it remanded for a jury trial because, while a “reasonable jury could . . . find that the officers gratuitously inflicted pain,” it was also “entirely possible that a reasonable jury would find . . . that the police officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances.”(emphasis added). Relevant here, Amnesty America even relied on a decision approving the practice of warning protesters and then using wristlocks to move them. (citing Forrester v. San Diego, 25 F. 3d 804, 807-808 (CA9 1994)). (citations omitted).

The Court found that reasonable officer would not “interpret [Amnesty America] to establish that using a routine wristlock to move a resistance protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution.”

The Court noted that here, Sergeant Zorn gave Linton repeated warnings that he would have to respond to her resistance with more force if she did not stand up on her own and responded with the wristlock after she did not comply or respond in light of the warning.

The Court went further in noting that even if the Amnesty America case did put officers on notice “that the gratuitous use of pain compliance techniques—such as a rear wristlock—on a protester who is passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force;” it would not put an officer on notice that “using a rear wristlock to move a noncompliant protester after repeated warnings, “as it fails to specify which circumstances make the use of force ‘gratuitous.’”

Bottom Line: The Court did NOT decide whether a rear wristlock on a noncompliant protester who had been warned was a reasonable use of force. It also did not find that it was an unreasonable use of force.

Instead, the Court found that the law was not clearly established such that every reasonable officer would know that the use of the wristlock under these circumstances violated the Constitution.  As such, Sergeant Zorn would not have been on notice when he used the wristlock that his actions violated the Constitution and therefore was entitled to have the lawsuit dismissed on Qualified Immunity.