Qualified Immunity in the Shadows

The United States Supreme Court today issued a per curiam opinion from its shadow docket in Zorn v. Linton. The unsigned opinion was met by the dissent of Justice Sotomayor. The issue was whether or not a police officer was entitled to a summary judgment based on qualified immunity. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the majority continued its statistical trend to find in favor of police officers In excessive force cases.

Both the opinion and the dissent Interpreted lower federal court authority as well as full Supreme Court decisions. Of interest, both opinions cited prior per curiam opinions as precedent to establish whether or not police officers were on notice that particular conduct violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment.

Reading both the Court's opinion and the dissent, it seems clear that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the officer in this case gave appropriate warnings and whether or not he used excessive force in applying a wrist restraint for the purpose of pain compliance. 

Nevertheless, this unsigned opinion goes into the books as further, and apparently citable, precedent in favor of police officer qualified immunity. The strong suggestion of the case is that plaintiff in section 1983 cases may have to find an identical fact situation in a prior case to avoid summary judgment.