And in such a case, you can sue for harassment. The police can't routinely violate your rights just for the heck of it, they need to show a good-faith belief that what they're doing is legal and could produce evidence useful in court.
> they need to show a good-faith belief...
That's not how being a plaintiff works, which is what is frustrating about this type of situation.
They do some action which is legally questionable. You have to show standing and potentially damages to be able to bring the suit, then you have to prove that what they did was not a good faith belief that their actions were legal. The onus is on the person without the power with (typically) minimal resources.
> But the problem with that argument, the appeals court ruled, is that courts have long held that police cannot be on the hook for property damage caused in the process of trying to make an arrest.
In that case it was incompetence, gross negligence, and so on. Naturally it's hard to prove in court that the court's enforcement arm is at fault.
And at first the guy tried to sue for damages but that was thrown out - because it's so well established - but still that's the point that should be hammered.