By Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
Supreme Court: Using a Routine Wristlock to Move a Resistant Protester Does Not Violate the US Constitution
On the day of the governor’s inauguration in Vermont, roughly 200 demonstrators gathered at the State House, where some, including Shela Linton, staged a sit-in to press for universal healthcare. As evening fell and the capitol closed to the public, 29 protesters remained in the legislative chamber, seated on the floor with their arms linked. Police officers warned them that, if they refused to leave, they would be arrested for trespassing. They stayed where they were.
As officers removed the protesters one by one, Sergeant Jacob Zorn asked Shela Linton “to stand up” and warned her that he would eventually have to use force to remove her. She refused to stand. Zorn took Linton’s arm, put(ting) it behind her back in a rear wristlock. Linton exclaimed, “ow, ow, ow,” while Zorn repeatedly asked 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 utilize additional 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 sued Zorn for “using excessive force,” claiming that the arrest left her with arm injuries, psychological injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Based on a previous ruling in Amnesty America v. West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 123 (2nd Cir. 2004), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity. The United States Supreme Court in Zorn v. Linton (US 3/23/2026) disagreed and reversed.
As a general rule, law enforcement officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under 42 US Code §1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law. “A right is clearly established when it is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” A right is not clearly established if existing precedent does not place the constitutional question “beyond debate.”
“To find that 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. …The relevant precedent must define the right with a ‘high degree of specificity,’ so that ‘every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.’…Principles stated generally, such as that ‘an officer may not use unreasonable and excessive force,’ do not suffice. …In short, officers receive qualified immunity unless they could have ‘read’ the relevant precedent beforehand and ‘know[n]’ that it proscribed their specific conduct.”
Here the Court held that existing precedent did not clearly establish that Sgt. Zorn’s specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether any particular use of force violates the Fourth Amendment depends on “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,”…including whether the officer gave “warnings” before using force[.] In 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. * * *
Reasonable officials 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. …Zorn repeatedly warned Linton that he would have to use more force if she did not stand up, and when she did not do so, he used a wristlock to bring Linton to her feet. …Amnesty America never “held” that such conduct alone “violated” the Fourth Amendment. * * *
[Amnesty America never held] “that the gratuitous use of pain compliance techniques – such as a rear wristlock – on a protestor who is passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.” …It does not “obviously resolve” whether using a rear wristlock to move a noncompliant protester after repeated warnings violates the Fourth Amendment, …as it fails to specify which circumstances make the use of force “gratuitous.”
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, Sgt. Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity.
Larry E. Holtz has served as a Detective Sergeant with the Atlantic City, New Jersey, Police Department; a Deputy Attorney General for the state of New Jersey, and an Assistant County Prosecutor. Presently, Mr. Holtz is a leading author for Blue360° Media, the largest US provider of legal information which is solely focused on serving law enforcement. Mr. Holtz is a certified police trainer and teaches on a regular basis. He is a member of the bar in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia and is admitted to practice before the federal bar in the District of New Jersey and the Third Circuit.