30 ms·

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 t

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.

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.