3 ms·
I have no problem with some sort of good faith immunity where through some factors it was determined they were in the wrong but were operating in good faith / h
by duxup 2y ago
I have no problem with some sort of good faith immunity where through some factors it was determined they were in the wrong but were operating in good faith / honest mistake. Yeah it will be vague, but I think it is required to be able to do things where ... you do get to infringe on people's rights (legally or not).
Having said that the example, there was no warrant and the sheriff had no reason to do what they did within the normal function of the job (sharing people's nudie pics...) ... that should be EASILY outside the bounds of QI
This case seems like the poster child where IQ enters he realm of of absurdity and degrades people's lack of trust in institutions. It also seems like an example where a more reasonable form of QI would thrive.
- lkjdsklf 2y agoReading the article it sounds like the problem is the previous supreme court rulings on QI. It requires that a court had previously ruled that the specific action was a violation of constitutional rights. It had not done that on this specific action previously, but did in this case. So they get QI here because of a lack of a previous ruling, but if the someone were to do the same thing in the future, they would not be given the benefit of the doubt.