zlacker

> If Congress is considering legislation to change QI

There already is legislation making government officials liable for violating someone's Constitutional or legal rights. 42 USC 1983 is pretty clear:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured..."

So I don't see why the court had to make up this whole "qualified immunity" thing in the first place. Just judge the question: did the government official violate the person's Constitutional or legal rights? If they did, they're liable.

>>pdonis+(OP)
As a pure layman, I would think that the 4th amendment would preclude cops from getting a warrant and then stealing everything on site. It says a lot about the country when we need MORE legislation and more rulings to prevent such a thing from happening.

>>x86_64+kw
> As a pure layman, I would think that the 4th amendment would preclude cops from getting a warrant and then stealing everything on site.

So would I, since according to the 4th Amendment warrants must be "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

> It says a lot about the country when we need MORE legislation and more rulings to prevent such a thing from happening.

Since rulings and legislation apparently haven't stopped it from happening up to now, I'm not sure how more rulings and legislation will help, without some fundamental change in how the rule of law is viewed by everyone.