WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court reversed a lower court rulingy and held that a Vermont officer was entitled to qualified immunityafter using a rear wristlock to remove a protester from the statehouse, VTDigger reported.
The court ruled that the existing precedent did not clearly establish that the officer’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment, leaving the officer protected under qualified immunity. The incident occurred in 2015 when a group of about 30 protesters attended then-Gov. Peter Shumlin’s inaugural address at the Vermont House of Representatives.
| WEBINAR: How agencies operationalize real-time policing
The group, which was protesting in favor of universal health care, unfurled a banner and refused to leave the building. Vermont State Police Officer Jacob Zorn began trying to remove a woman, Shela Linton, who was passively resisting by refusing to stand up.
Zorn then used a wristlock to remove Linton from the building. Following the incident, Linton filed a lawsuit alleging that she suffered permanent damage to her wrist and shoulder, as well as PTSD, according to VTDigger.
The Second Circuit found that the force used by Zorn was excessive according to precedent set by another wristlock case, Amnesty America v. West Hartford. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Zorn’s warnings before using the hold constituted a difference from the Amnesty America case and did not clearly establish a Fourth Amendment violation.
"[The ruling in Amnesty America vs. West Hartford] 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,’” the ruling reads.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion that the ruling “gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor even where there is no threat to officer safety.”
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of granting Zorn immunity.
