[parineum]

People talk about qualified immunity like it means a police officer is above the law. That's not true at all. When qualified immunity is working correctly, all it does is shift the liability from the individual to a higher authority (the department/city/state/etc).

In this case, it doesn't apply because theft isn't part of an officer's regular duties. You can't sue an officer for taking your laptop and putting it in evidence. You can sue an officer for taking your laptop home.

[lukeschlather]

> You can sue an officer for taking your laptop home.

Again, I agree with you that this should be true in principle, but I don't have faith that it will apply in this case, and this is contrary to the stated position of the police department.

[wat10000]

And it only shifts civil liability. The officer is still (according to the law if not actual practice) criminally culpable for illegal acts they perform.

[bdangubic]

> When qualified immunity is working correctly…

When is this exactly? 52 years on this planet and am yet to witness this event… :)

[parineum]

They don't write news stories about dogs biting men.