The officers, of course, claimed qualified immunity, under which an officer acting in good faith is generally immune from prosecution. The legal standard for this is that if a "reasonable" officer would have recognized that his conduct violated someone's Constitutional rights, immunity is lost and the case may proceed. The District court indeed concluded that a reasonable officer should've recognized that arresting Mr. Glik for recording them was a violation of his First Amendment rights, and that, therefor, they had no qualified immunity. The officers appealed, and, today, a three-judge panel affirmed that, yes, they should've known they were trampling Mr. Gilk's constitutional rights, and that they could consequently be sued.
Well, hot damn!
Next, they need to hold a prosecutor to the same standard and let him PERSONALLY get his ass sued off.