4 ms·

> For decades police can be investigated for any improper searches of license plates or personal IDs, which can result in criminal referrals. And those same of

> For decades police can be investigated for any improper searches of license plates or personal IDs, which can result in criminal referrals. And those same officers, even when it has been found they violated the rights of those they're sworn and paid to serve, are all too often shielded from the consequences of their actions and from their victims seeking recourse. Qualified immunity is legal doctrine which prevents victims from seeking justice in cases where there is no previous precedent for such an action being allowed. I would expect that license plate readers, mass-surveillance assisted by AI technologies, etc. are sufficiently novel that the case would have to make the U.S. supreme court to survive a motion to dismiss under qualified immunity. So if you believe in there being legal consequences for police officers and other government officials violating the rights of the governed, I would hope to see in your next comments you standing with me and demanding the elimination of the "qualified immunity" doctrine which today goes along way to protect the guilty from the legal recourse sought by the victims of such officers. This is especially needed in those cases where the officers, bureaucracy, and politicians fail to "act true", as you might suggest that they can, to prevent injustices with these police systems. For those curious about what "qualified immunity" is in the US, take a look at: https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/ https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability... and https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/why-its-almost-impossible-to-sue-federal-agents/ https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability... All part of the Institute for Justice's work on immunity and accountability: https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/ https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...

austin-cheney 1mo ago
This isn’t a qualified immunity issue due to intent and criminality. Qualified immunity is only a shield from civil actions involving non-malicious, in terms of ethics, intent.
- sbuttgereit 1mo ago
  The first sentence is correct insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, but assuming that the targets of the searches have had their rights violated they could very well be denied their ability to sue for restitution under Qualified Immunity. The second sentence is just wrong. Qualified immunity is a shield from civil actions without regard to if the violation was/was not malicious or with/without intent. This is from one of the IJ pages I linked: "Does qualified immunity apply when government workers intentionally violate the law? Yes. Qualified immunity applies even when officials intentionally or recklessly violate the law. The primary consideration in a qualified immunity analysis is whether there is an earlier court case specifically stating that the particular actions of an official are unconstitutional. So, for example, the Ninth Circuit U.S Court of Appeals held that police accused of stealing $225,000 while executing a search warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because that court had 'never addressed whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant…violates the Fourth Amendment.' It did not matter 'that virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong.'" -- (https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/#faq-question-1688414611964 https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...) Or more directly from the summary of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion: "The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity." https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/1... Theft requires criminality and intent and is arguably malicious. Yet, the court held that they couldn't even be sued on the basis of qualified immunity being applicable... that's not saying that the victims sued and lost... but that the suit was never heard on those grounds. At least the court went on to say that the police should have known theft was morally wrong: "The panel held that although the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong, they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The panel further held that the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Mom’s Inc. v. Willman, 109 F. App’x 629, 636–37 (4th Cir. 2004)—the only case law that the time of the incident holding that the theft of property pursuant to a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment—did not put the 'constitutional question beyond debate.'" Because the question was not previously answered, the officers received the de facto protection of qualified immunity and not having to face the civil suit, criminality/intent/maliciousness notwithstanding.

austin-cheney 1mo ago

This isn’t a qualified immunity issue due to intent and criminality. Qualified immunity is only a shield from civil actions involving non-malicious, in terms of ethics, intent.

sbuttgereit 1mo ago
The first sentence is correct insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, but assuming that the targets of the searches have had their rights violated they could very well be denied their ability to sue for restitution under Qualified Immunity. The second sentence is just wrong. Qualified immunity is a shield from civil actions without regard to if the violation was/was not malicious or with/without intent. This is from one of the IJ pages I linked: "Does qualified immunity apply when government workers intentionally violate the law? Yes. Qualified immunity applies even when officials intentionally or recklessly violate the law. The primary consideration in a qualified immunity analysis is whether there is an earlier court case specifically stating that the particular actions of an official are unconstitutional. So, for example, the Ninth Circuit U.S Court of Appeals held that police accused of stealing $225,000 while executing a search warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because that court had 'never addressed whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant…violates the Fourth Amendment.' It did not matter 'that virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong.'" -- (https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/#faq-question-1688414611964 https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...) Or more directly from the summary of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion: "The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity." https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/1... Theft requires criminality and intent and is arguably malicious. Yet, the court held that they couldn't even be sued on the basis of qualified immunity being applicable... that's not saying that the victims sued and lost... but that the suit was never heard on those grounds. At least the court went on to say that the police should have known theft was morally wrong: "The panel held that although the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong, they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The panel further held that the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Mom’s Inc. v. Willman, 109 F. App’x 629, 636–37 (4th Cir. 2004)—the only case law that the time of the incident holding that the theft of property pursuant to a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment—did not put the 'constitutional question beyond debate.'" Because the question was not previously answered, the officers received the de facto protection of qualified immunity and not having to face the civil suit, criminality/intent/maliciousness notwithstanding.