Wednesday, August 31, 2011

A good step forward

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.

No comments: