Justices side with officer accused of excessive force against peaceful protester

(CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday held that a Vermont police officer is entitled to qualified immunity against a woman’s claims he caused permanent damage to her wrist and shoulder during a peaceful protest.

The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned of a “troubling asymmetry”: “This case unfortunately represents a resurgence and perpetuation of this ‘one-sided approach to qualified immunity’ that ’transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment.’”

“The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protester even where there is no threat to officer safety or any other reason to do so,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote.

“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 added. She was joined by fellow Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee.

In the majority per curiam opinion, the justices scorned the Second Circuit’s ruling in favor of Shela Linton, where judges found the “gratuitous” use of a rear wristlock on a protester passively resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.

Unlike the officers in Amnesty America v. West Hartford, officer Jacob Zorn “repeatedly warned Linton that he would have to use more force if she did not stand up,” the justices wrote.

But according to three of the justices, this interpretation misrepresents both cases.

In Amnesty America, the police purportedly employed a “pain compliance technique” only after they were unsuccessful in asking protestors to move, Sotomayor wrote. In this case, she wrote, construing the evidence in favor of Linton as required shows Zorn did not issue any clear commands until after he had initiated the wristlock.

Linton immediately exclaimed, “‘Ow, ow, ow!’” Only then did Zorn instruct Linton to “‘please stand up.’”

“The Second Circuit held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity on Linton’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, at least at the summary judgment stage, because prior circuit precedent had clearly established that using a rear wristlock against a nonviolent protestor would violate the protestor’s constitutional rights,” Sotomayor wrote. “That decision was not erroneous, and certainly not so clearly erroneous as to warrant the ’extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal.'”

Linton sued Zorn, claiming he violated her Fourth Amendment right against excessive use of force after she was physically removed from a staged sit-in protest for universal health care at the state capitol during the 2015 inauguration for Governor Peter Shumlin.

About 200 protesters attended, but when the capitol closed to the public for the night, 29 remained sitting on the floor of the legislative chamber with their arms linked, including Linton.

At that point, officers explained they would arrest the protesters for trespassing if they did not leave, leading to some being escorted out without force, while others refused to stand and were forcibly dragged out.

When Linton refused to stand, Zorn took her arm, twisted it behind her back, placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her to her feet. As a result, Linton says she “suffered permanent loss of motion in her left wrist and shoulder" and has been “diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.”

The dissenting justices found the case should be decided by a jury, as excessive force claims hinge on the circumstances of the incident.

They noted one of the officers at the capitol described the “threat to safety” in the environment as very low, as none of the protesters engaged in violence and each passed through security and were therefore considered unarmed. Additionally, the crime of trespass for which Linton was arrested is not “particularly severe.”

However, the majority wrote that Linton “planned to refuse to leave and anticipated being forcibly removed,” pointing to a deposition statement in which she said, “That’s the point of the sit-in part of the protest.”

Linton’s attorney said his client had hoped the justices would recognize growing public outrage against an unjust, ever-expanding use of qualified immunity.

“In this case, like all qualified immunity cases, there is also a real human cost to denying a plaintiff access to justice,” said attorney Keegan Stephan from the New York-based firm, Beldock Levine & Hoffman.

“Even the state’s expert found that Sergeant Zorn permanently injured Ms. Linton, limiting her mobility, affecting her ability to function in her daily life, and causing her intense pain — for the rest of her life.  Now, because of this decision, Ms. Linton will get no compensation for that suffering,” he added.

Attorneys for Zorn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @Megwiththenews