Zorn v. Linton · ¶12
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. Escondido v. Emmons, 586 U. S. 38, 43 (2019) (per cu riam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant precedent must define the right with a “high degree of specifcity,” so that “every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U. S. 48, 63 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Principles stated generally, such as that “an officer may not use unreasonable and excessive force,” do not suffce. Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U. S. 100, 105 (2018) (per curiam). In short, officers receive qualified immunity unless they could have “read” the relevant precedent beforehand and “know[n]” that it proscribed their…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.