Zorn v. Linton · ¶28
Starting with the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Linton contends that Zorn violated her Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force during her arrest. Determining whether a given use of force is excessive requires a “careful balancing of ` “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests” ' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396 (1989). The inquiry depends on the “ `totality of the circumstances,' ” “including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, . . . whether [s]he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fight,” ibid., the “relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used[, and] the extent of [her] injury,” Kingsley v. Hendrick…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.