Zorn v. Linton · ¶29

Here, the Second Circuit rightly concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Zorn's use of force was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See 135 F. 4th, at 36. First, the crime of trespass for which Linton was arrested is not “ `particularly severe.' ” Ibid. Second, it is undisputed that the threat to safety posed by Linton was relatively low. Trooper Richardson described the level of safety risk as “ `[v]ery low.' ” Ibid. The protestors also “passed through security (and therefore must have been considered to be unarmed), did not significantly outnumber police,” and were “not accused of being volatile or violent.” Ibid. Third, it is also undisputed that Linton “suffered permanent loss of motion in her left wrist and shoulder as a result of the incident.” Ibid. Fourth, there is a material dispute of fact as to whether Linton was actively resisting arrest, and a jury…

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