I am not so sure. Qualified immunity is civil protection not criminal protection. That means that qualified immunity protects the police officer from being sued

I am not so sure. Qualified immunity is civil protection not criminal protection. That means that qualified immunity protects the police officer from being sued for money by a citizen. It does not protect the officer from being prosecuted by that conduct. I am not sure that civil trials are a great way to protect Constitutional rights. The outcome of an egregious civil rights lawsuit is that the plaintiff gets paid money that comes from the city (via taxes) and the police depart and involved officer are otherwise unaffected. The real winners in changing qualified immunity would not be the public or the Constitution, but rather trial lawyers. High profile state and federal prosecutions of police officers who violate civil rights are probably a much bigger deterrent to police officers violating the Constitution, and that is completely unaffected by qualified immunity. If you really want something that is burning a hole in the Constitution, it is Civil Forfeiture. That one goes directly against the Fourth Amendment protection against government seizure.