At some level, we're talking past each other. Your initial observation is correct so long as we're willing to limit the scope of our comments to the specific f

At some level, we're talking past each other. Your initial observation is correct so long as we're willing to limit the scope of our comments to the specific facts of the case being reported, similar to how a criminal jury would most likely be restricted in such a review of fact/law. In that sense you're right: nothing new here, this is simply a case of certain officers misusing policing tools, not unlike had they used police resources to wiretap their victims for their own personal interests. But what many of us are commenting on isn't the specific, narrow details of this case, but the implications that this case carries more broadly. Many of us believe approaching this case with the narrowness of a jury misses the point that the barrier to these kinds of abuse are substantially lower with these new technologies than was true in decades past. New technologies dramatically reduce the cost (time, money, expertise) of perpetrating such violations of personal privacy and rights; it use to be that it was costly enough that surveilling a suspect had to be a directed effort... now we capture all the data and only direct the computer assisted analysis. That what was done here falls under "decades old" provisions of law meant to prevent such specific abuse is great, but that doesn't change that what is reported here has a substantial lower barrier for abuse than was true in decades past. And even then those decades old safeguards only apply when there is government will to apply them... in this case there appears to be... but that isn't always true and when the abuse is systematic abuse by the government itself all bets are off in regard to such safeguards. Many of us think that this case is another example of these new issues worthy of opening the broader discussion about the implications that this case raises rather than looking at with a clinically narrow examination of the facts of the case. Qualified immunity and its mechanics specifically blocks one avenue for redress by implementing the default assumption that government officials are protected unless a previous finding of constitutional violation exists involving the specific details of the complaint. Given that these aren't decades old technologies and the violations wouldn't have been tested before, qualified immunity is much more likely to be blocked in a case like this than not: you'd very likely need to get the US Supreme Court to rule to establish such a precedent. To answer your specific question: "What immunity applies here?" The answer is qualified immunity is almost certainly to be invoked if any of the victims chose to seek remedy for their denial of rights by these officers in a civil setting. In fact, one of my points is that it absolutely applies by default unless the plaintiffs in such a suit can demonstrate that prior case law settled the question that using something like Flock cameras for surveilling them without a warrant is a violation of their constitutional rights. Absent that applicable case law: qualified immunity would seem to apply by default. Do we know that it has been applied? No. In fact the article is silent about whether victims have even been notified that they were the target of such surveillance or if civil cases have been filed. Even if not filed, the very nature of qualified immunity, and its own decades long protections of such violations, may be sufficient discouragement to even file such a claim absent clear supporting case law.