Supreme Court Qualified Immunity Ruling: Officer Uses Wristlock on Nonviolent Protester. Was it Excessive Force?

By Robert Phillips 
Deputy District Attorney (ret.) 

Legal Concepts and Case Citation

• Qualified immunity from civil liability
• A wristlock as a use of force on a non-violent protester
• Use of a wristlock and the Fourth Amendment

Rule: The use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer on a nonviolent protester violates the Fourth Amendment. The use of a wristlock to force compliance by an otherwise non-violent protester may or may not subject the officer to civil liability, depending upon the existence of prior case law that would have put the officer on notice that the force used was unconstitutionally excessive.

Summary: On inauguration day for a new governor in Vermont, protesters staged a sit-in at the state capitol’s legislative chambers. When the capitol closed for the day, police officers told the protesters that they would be arrested for trespassing if they did not leave. Many of the protesters, including Shela Linton, refused to leave. As officers removed the protesters one by one, Sgt. Jacob Zorn asked Linton to stand up, warning her that he would eventually have to use force to remove her. When she refused to stand, Sgt. Zorn took Linton’s arm, put it behind her back, placed pressure on her wrist and used this pressure to lift her to her feet. Claiming that her wrist ....