What are the limits on police &quot;qualified immunity&quot;?
<p>When the police seize property in the course of their official duties, they have "qualified immunity."  How is that immunity qualified?  I.e., what are the minimal conditions under which they could be stripped of that immunity and subject to <em>criminal</em> charges like Theft?</p>

<p>To take the most extreme example I can think of: A police officer encounters you during the investigation of a crime.  You happen to be moving that day, so all of your belongings are in "plain view" between the yard, open house, and open moving truck.  The cop decides he <em>really</em> doesn't like you and so, even though there is no nexus between you or your property and the crime he is investigating he decides to seize all of your property as "evidence."  Because it's in "plain view" he doesn't need a warrant.  He properly logs your property into evidence, and then lets you know you won't see it until the case has been adjudicated.  (What case, and when will that be?  He won't tell you because it's an open investigation, but he notes that these things can drag on for <em>years</em>.  I.e., he articulates an <em>intent</em> to deprive you of your property for so long a period as to satisfy the requirements of Theft.)</p>

<p>Is this cop immune to any criminal charge for this action?</p>

<p>What if you, as the victim, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not follow proper procedures.  E.g., he took something that was provably exempt from the "plain view" doctrine and therefore should have not been taken without a warrant, which he did not have?</p>

<p>Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials (including police) from civil liability in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983" rel="nofollow">§1983</a> suits. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12881500287411882090" rel="nofollow">Anderson v. Creighton</a> describes the legal standard - objective legal reasonableness.</p>

<p>There is no condition that would strip an officer of civil immunity and open him up to criminal liability because the criminal charges could attach regardless of the disposition of civil liability. I say "could" because who is going to charge and prosecute the crime?</p>

<p>The CATO Institute <a href="http://www.policemisconduct.net/" rel="nofollow">tracks police misconduct</a>. Not all misconduct is criminal, but reading through their site will give you an idea of why it is difficult to determine when and why cops are charged with crimes.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Only a small fraction of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies actually
  track their own misconduct in a semi-public manner, and even when they
  do, the data they provide is generic and does not specify what
  misconduct occurred, who did it, and what the end result was.</p>
</blockquote>

police theft property