Zorn v. Linton · ¶14

Amnesty America did not hold that any of those actions violated the Fourth Amendment, let alone all of them. Instead, it remanded for a jury trial because, while a “reasonable jury could . . . find that the officers gratuitously inficted pain,” it was also “entirely possible that a reasonable jury would find . . . that the police officers' use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances.” Id., at 124 (emphasis added). Relevant here, Amnesty America even relied on a decision approving the practice of warning protesters and then using wristlocks to move them. Ibid. (citing Forrester v. San Diego, 25 F. 3d 804, 807–808 (CA9 1994)).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.