My point is simply that you suggested that qualified immunity doesn't apply to this case, and I agree that it should not in principle but my understanding of the case law is that it typically does.
In this case, it doesn't apply because theft isn't part of an officer's regular duties. You can't sue an officer for taking your laptop and putting it in evidence. You can sue an officer for taking your laptop home.
Again, I agree with you that this should be true in principle, but I don't have faith that it will apply in this case, and this is contrary to the stated position of the police department.
When is this exactly? 52 years on this planet and am yet to witness this event… :)