4 ms·

Which facts are complicated here? The sherif in her home town got access to her the contents of her phone under dubious reasons, gossiped about her arrest, and

Which facts are complicated here? The sherif in her home town got access to her the contents of her phone under dubious reasons, gossiped about her arrest, and showed off her nude photos. Seems pretty cut and dry to me

collingreen 2y ago
Seriously - I'm struggling to even imagine a good faith version of sharing nude photos of someone else without their permission. Doing so after getting access to those photos through an abuse of power is horrifying.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Sadly, the existence of a good faith version of the facts isn't really necessary for qualified immunity. You basically just need the court to say "there isn't a prior case with these exact facts demonstrating that it is a constitutional violation" and you are good to go. Even if everybody with a brain can look at the facts and say "well that's obviously a violation of rights" the court can happily say "nope there is some minor factual delta that means that we haven't explicitly ruled on this exact circumstance so how could a cop ever know that they were violating rights?"
  - collingreen 2y ago
    It's wild that ignorance of the law is ONLY an excuse for trained law enforcement. The rest of us do not get that leeway.
- enoch_r 2y ago
  The good faith version of this would be that he is telling the truth, he didn't share or offer to share the photos with anyone, and the rumors the plaintiff heard about people seeing the photos were just rumors. (I think it's clear that at the very least, he mentioned the nude photos to at least one other person - otherwise no rumor could get started in the first place - which is obviously bad behavior, but not nearly as bad as actually sharing the photos.) Because the sharing of the photos with other people wasn't established by the evidence, the court was just ruling on whether the DA had violated the plaintiffs rights by transferring the data dump from the plaintiff's phone to the sheriff, and whether that violation was obvious/established enough from prior court rulings to revoke QI. It had nothing to do with sharing the photos themselves with anyone (the DA didn't know the data dump had the photos when he shared it).
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    I do not see a good faith case, period. I've come across compromising data over the years--and never have I referred to it in any way that would permit identification of the person. Either it warrants going to the police or it stays private, there's no in between.
anon84873628 2y ago
The fact that she claimed her boyfriend is a sheriff's deputy, so his bosses wanted to look at her phone for evidence that he was involved in crimes. It allows them to claim they had a legitimate reason to share the data other than just ogling the photos. Which is all just to say: don't talk to cops and don't agree to searches, even if you think dating one will help you get out of trouble.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  Don't date cops. Just don't. ... Years ago, a friend of mine went on a few dates with a cop. She ended up not being interested, so she broke it off. Then the harassment began. Her phone/landline rang non-stop. Cops in marked cars would sit outside her house. He even showed up at her work, talking to her co-workers, claiming she was under investigation for some kind of fraud (she wasn't). And, strange dudes started following her in the subway (NYC). Who do you call when you're being harassed by the people you're supposed to call when you're being harassed? ... Luckily for her, she had a cousin that was a 20-year NYPD veteran. Him and some other veterans cops went to "have a talk" with the younger cop. Problem solved, but it was a total nightmare for her.
- thephyber 2y ago
  > don't talk to cops and don't agree to searches The people who trust cops are the most at risk of this. Those who don’t know their rights or who are afraid to assert them are also at risk. The people who have already internalized this statement are least at risk. But we are all at risk when police are corrupt. And the fact that police who do these things still have jobs means that the number of corrupt officers is far larger than it should be.

collingreen 2y ago

Seriously - I'm struggling to even imagine a good faith version of sharing nude photos of someone else without their permission. Doing so after getting access to those photos through an abuse of power is horrifying.

UncleMeat 2y ago
Sadly, the existence of a good faith version of the facts isn't really necessary for qualified immunity. You basically just need the court to say "there isn't a prior case with these exact facts demonstrating that it is a constitutional violation" and you are good to go. Even if everybody with a brain can look at the facts and say "well that's obviously a violation of rights" the court can happily say "nope there is some minor factual delta that means that we haven't explicitly ruled on this exact circumstance so how could a cop ever know that they were violating rights?"
- collingreen 2y ago
  It's wild that ignorance of the law is ONLY an excuse for trained law enforcement. The rest of us do not get that leeway.
enoch_r 2y ago
The good faith version of this would be that he is telling the truth, he didn't share or offer to share the photos with anyone, and the rumors the plaintiff heard about people seeing the photos were just rumors. (I think it's clear that at the very least, he mentioned the nude photos to at least one other person - otherwise no rumor could get started in the first place - which is obviously bad behavior, but not nearly as bad as actually sharing the photos.) Because the sharing of the photos with other people wasn't established by the evidence, the court was just ruling on whether the DA had violated the plaintiffs rights by transferring the data dump from the plaintiff's phone to the sheriff, and whether that violation was obvious/established enough from prior court rulings to revoke QI. It had nothing to do with sharing the photos themselves with anyone (the DA didn't know the data dump had the photos when he shared it).
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  I do not see a good faith case, period. I've come across compromising data over the years--and never have I referred to it in any way that would permit identification of the person. Either it warrants going to the police or it stays private, there's no in between.

anon84873628 2y ago

The fact that she claimed her boyfriend is a sheriff's deputy, so his bosses wanted to look at her phone for evidence that he was involved in crimes. It allows them to claim they had a legitimate reason to share the data other than just ogling the photos. Which is all just to say: don't talk to cops and don't agree to searches, even if you think dating one will help you get out of trouble.

jimt1234 2y ago
Don't date cops. Just don't. ... Years ago, a friend of mine went on a few dates with a cop. She ended up not being interested, so she broke it off. Then the harassment began. Her phone/landline rang non-stop. Cops in marked cars would sit outside her house. He even showed up at her work, talking to her co-workers, claiming she was under investigation for some kind of fraud (she wasn't). And, strange dudes started following her in the subway (NYC). Who do you call when you're being harassed by the people you're supposed to call when you're being harassed? ... Luckily for her, she had a cousin that was a 20-year NYPD veteran. Him and some other veterans cops went to "have a talk" with the younger cop. Problem solved, but it was a total nightmare for her.
thephyber 2y ago
> don't talk to cops and don't agree to searches The people who trust cops are the most at risk of this. Those who don’t know their rights or who are afraid to assert them are also at risk. The people who have already internalized this statement are least at risk. But we are all at risk when police are corrupt. And the fact that police who do these things still have jobs means that the number of corrupt officers is far larger than it should be.