> This is so much of a violation the court doesn't even have to look for precedent. Right here is the key sentence of the article. Normally, in cases involvin

> This is so much of a violation the court doesn't even have to look for precedent. Right here is the key sentence of the article. Normally, in cases involving qualified immunity, the circumstances have to match up more or less exactly with some precedent in order for qualified immunity to be denied. So, if officers break into someone's place and steal/seize money and rare coins, without justification, as happened recently, when faced with a precedent about officers seizing money alone, the Court might conclude that qualified immunity applies. Once qualified immunity applies, that effectively kills the case. The worst part about this is that means the case can't become the specific precedent that the Court is looking for. This is why qualified immunity is terribly constructed: there is no way for the Court to say "You did the wrong thing, but you didn't know, so you had qualified immunity. But, next time someone does that, they should know better."