This is important.

For years, when it comes to police and government surveillance, we've been told "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."  Curiously, this same statement doesn't seem to carry much weight when turned back on some police departments.  Almost like it's a double standard or something.

But by way of Sharp as a Marble, there is hope for justice through the 1st Circuit Court's recent decision, which holds that 'qualified immunity' doesn't entitle officers to violate a citizen's Constitutional rights.

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.

RTWT.  There are still some judges out there who know what the Constitution is.