Zorn v. Linton · ¶33

Amnesty America's specific discussion of rear wristlocks thus clearly established that using a rear wristlock against a nonviolent, passively resisting protestor could constitute excessive force. It therefore put Zorn on notice, to a “high `degree of specifcity,' ” Wesby, 583 U. S., at 63, that using the same technique against a passively resisting protestor like Linton would expose him to liability for violating Linton's Fourth Amendment rights.

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