Background
Sophia Wilansky was severely injured by an aerial warning munition fired by police during a pipeline protest in North Dakota in November two thousand sixteen. She sued under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, alleging excessive force and failure to train. The district court dismissed both of her lawsuits with prejudice.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed the claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. For the Fourth Amendment, the court applied the objective test from Torres versus Madrid to determine if a seizure occurred. It found that it was not clearly established as of November two thousand sixteen that using force to disperse protesters constituted a seizure. For the Fourteenth Amendment, the court applied the shocks-the-conscience standard from County of Sacramento versus Lewis. It held that the plaintiff failed to show that the officers’ conduct was clearly established as violating this standard. Regarding the Monell claim against the county, the court found the plaintiff failed to allege a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct sufficient to establish liability.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that officers are entitled to qualified immunity when using force to disperse crowds unless there is clearly established precedent to the contrary. It also clarifies that plaintiffs must plead specific facts linking each defendant to the alleged constitutional violation to survive a motion to dismiss.