
Court: No, You May Not Force Your Way into a Home and Strip Search Six Children - 4ad
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200825/21321545185/federal-court-no-you-fucking-may-not-force-your-way-into-home-strip-search-six-very-young-children.shtml
======
pmiller2
> This is so much of a violation the court doesn't even have to look for
> precedent.

Right here is the key sentence of the article. Normally, in cases involving
qualified immunity, the circumstances have to match up more or less exactly
with some precedent in order for qualified immunity to be denied. So, if
officers break into someone's place and steal/seize money and rare coins,
without justification, as happened recently, when faced with a precedent about
officers seizing money alone, the Court might conclude that qualified immunity
applies.

Once qualified immunity applies, that effectively kills the case. The worst
part about this is that means the case can't _become_ the specific precedent
that the Court is looking for. _This_ is why qualified immunity is terribly
constructed: there is no way for the Court to say "You did the wrong thing,
but you didn't know, so you had qualified immunity. But, _next time_ someone
does that, they should know better."

------
mindslight
Just a friendly reminder that if this crime had been committed by two people
not wearing state-costumes, they both would be getting prosecuted for 6 counts
of sexual assault of a minor. Our justice system has been taken over by
criminals, and they are using it to act out their own sick fantasies that have
little to do with justice.

------
java-man
I cannot even find words how revolting this is.

As we develop various technical solutions, and keep discussing merits of this
or that javascript framework, let's keep in mind that the technology we
develop may end up in the hands of the people described in the article. Or
this might have happened already.

------
Mirioron
Would the woman have been legally justified to defend herself and the
children? Or was her only legal option to stand there and let the abuse
happen?

~~~
tssva
Legally she could have never let them enter the house. Once inside she could
have legally stopped the searches at anytime and required both the officer and
social worker to leave her home.

What she could do legally matters little when two government officials, one
armed, told her that exercising her legal rights would result in them
returning with a court order to take her children.

------
phobosanomaly
What on earth was in the social worker's head leading up to this?

Is there some context that doesn't justify, but maybe explains the situation?

Is it just as simple as a bully arbitrarily abusing a position of power?

