re: "A Teen Sexting Case Revealed How Judges Let Police Invade Children’s Privacy"

This is kind of a simplification /dramatic spin on this. It's a civil suit where the officers are claiming qualified immunity. The standard to overcome that is very, very high. The Plaintiff basically has to show that unless every reasonable officer in this position would have known that this was a violation of a clearly established Constitutional right, the officer is entitled to QI. Clearly established essentially means another court would have had to find this same action unconstitutional, and even a split in circuits is enough to kill it.

In other words, it's trying to fit strange facts into a very high burden applied in a complicated way.

The dissenting judge's reasoning is basically "the guy was acting pursuant to a court order. If officers can't rely upon that, what can they rely on. Take up your issue with the judge, who should have never issued it. Once it is there, it's an order, so you can't say he's acting unreasonably." It'd produce a negative outcome, but it's not necessarily a wild line of thinking legally.