>given the officers consulted the "City’s Law Director and the judges who issued the warrants," there was evidence of that disagreement. Based on the CiC. v. H

>given the officers consulted the "City’s Law Director and the judges who issued the warrants," there was evidence of that disagreement. Based on the CiC. v. Husted opinion that the judges cited in Novak, the officers don't need to consult anybody or be aware of a disagreement; there just needs to be the possibility of one, the argument being that we shouldn't hold public officals to a higher standard than judges, so if judges could disagree about the constitutionality of sonething then the officials should be able to as well. This seems like a comically low bar to me that could easily be met here. > Municipalities vigorously defend themselves for a reason. Of course they'll defend themselves vigorously in court, but will it change the behavior of the officers and officials in question if they're shielded from liability? I doubt it, though I hope I'm wrong. > And I think that could even be fair, especially if the mayor and cop thought they were acting according to the law. The law they relied on didn't come out of nowhere, after all. Well, I suppose if you think that, then you agree about the liklihood of qualified immunity getting applied here. But I can't imagine that the mayor or police believed this rule was constitutional, and I think that shows in their rapid and discrete removal of the rule following Petersen's acquittal. > the city council delegated authority to the mayor. For instance, if the mayor thought a comment or question was “derogatory,” the mayor could enforce the city’s policy however he saw fit . . . Conversely, if someone else thought a comment or question was “derogatory,” but not the mayor, nothing would happen.