Did the Second Circuit err in finding a potential constitutional violation for excessive force and denying the officers qualified immunity

QUESTION PRESENTED NYPD officers were escorting a large protest in the middle of Manhattan when the situation grew chaotic: a hostile crowd of protestors surrounded a much smaller group of officers, yelling and blocking a major intersection, with some throwing glass bottles and other objects toward the outnumbered officers. To gain control of the scene and direct protestors out of the roadway, Lieutenant John Maguire and Officer Mike Poletto used the alert tone and oral announcement functions of an LRAD 100X—a groundbreaking, portable acoustic device—at intervals over the next three minutes. None of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit were arrested or detained. The question presented is: Did the Second Circuit err in finding a potential constitutional violation for excessive force and denying the officers qualified immunity, particularly given that no case had addressed whether and when sound constitutes force, much less held that the use of an acoustic device crosses the line into constitutionally excessive force under circumstances resembling those here or, indeed, under any circumstances at all?