Zorn v. Linton · ¶15
Reasonable officials would not “interpret [Amnesty America] to establish” that using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution. Wesby, 583 U. S., at 63; see Sheehan, 575 U. S., at 615–616. Zorn repeatedly warned Linton that he would have to use more force if she did not stand up, and when she did not do so, he used a wristlock to bring Linton to her feet. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 47–49. Amnesty America never “held” that such conduct alone “violated” the Fourth Amendment. Emmons, 586 U. S., at 43 (internal quotation marks omitted). If anything, it implied the opposite. See Amnesty America, 361 F. 3d, at 124 (citing Forres ter, 25 F. 3d, at 807–808). And its statement that officers who had engaged in a wide range of aggressive conduct may have used excessive force did not “put [Zorn] on notice that his specific conduct…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.