The question
Whether an officer who used a wristlock on a protester after a verbal warning was entitled to qualified immunity.
Zorn v. Linton
What the Court decided
The Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Because no prior case had clearly established that using a routine wristlock on a protester, after a verbal warning and without more, violates the Constitution, the officer could not be held liable. The Court summarily reversed the decision below.
How the justices split
UnanimousPer curiam (unsigned)
Delivered by the Court
Qualified immunity shields an officer unless existing precedent has placed the constitutional question beyond debate. No case clearly established that a routine wristlock on a protester after a verbal warning violates the Constitution, so the officer was entitled to immunity and the decision below is reversed.
How we know · 2 sourced claims
The Court held the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 25-297
No prior case clearly established that a routine wristlock after a verbal warning is unconstitutional.
Source: syllabus