Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA
from the law-enforcement:-still-hazardous-to-innocent-Americans dept
The DEA likes to borrow stuff. It's just not very good about returning borrowed items in the same shape it got them.
Like a woman's Facebook account.
Or a businessman's semi truck.
And his employee's life.
Craig Patty runs a tiny trucking company in Texas. He has only two trucks in his "fleet." One of them was being taken to Houston for repairs by his employee, Lawrence Chapa. Or so he thought.
In reality, Chapa was working with the DEA, which had paid him to load up Patty's truck with marijuana and haul it back to Houston so the DEA could bust the prospective buyers. That's when everything went completely, horribly wrong.
[A]s the truck entered northwest Houston under the watch of approximately two dozen law enforcement officers, several heavily armed Los Zetas cartel-connected soldiers in sport utility vehicles converged on Patty’s truck.Until Patty received a call notifying him that his employee had been killed, he was completely unaware of the DEA's operations involving both his truck and his driver. Unbelievably, things got even worse for Patty after this discovery.
In the ensuing firefight, Patty’s truck was wrecked and riddled with bullet holes, and a plainclothes Houston police officer shot and wounded a plainclothes Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputy who was mistaken for a gangster.
The truck’s driver was killed and four attackers were arrested and charged with capital murder.
Patty's truck was impounded by the DEA. After it was released to him, it was out of service for several months as it underwent more than $100,000-worth of repairs. The DEA offered him no financial assistance for the truck it helped fill with bullet holes nor did it offer to make up for the revenue Patty lost while his truck was out of commission. His insurance company likewise turned down his claim, citing his truck's use in a law enforcement operation.
Nor did the DEA offer to do something to repair his newly-acquired reputation as a drug runner and/or DEA informant -- something that makes Patty's life a little bit more dangerous.
Nor will it have to. A federal judge has dismissed Patty's lawsuit against the DEA seeking up to $6.4 million in damages. (h/t to attorney Mark Bennett, who previously advised Patty but did not represent him in this lawsuit.)
A Houston-based federal judge ruled that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration does not owe the owner of a small Texas trucking company anything, not even the cost of repairing the bullet holes to a tractor-trailer truck that the agency used without his permission for a wild 2011 drug cartel sting that resulted in the execution-style murder of the truck’s driver, who was secretly working as a government informant.The government argued that it is neither culpable for the damage nor under any obligation to inform the owner of any property that it wishes to use in its operations, because "clandestine."
No statute, regulation, or policy “specifically prescribe[d]” or prohibited the course of action Patty alleges the DEA agents followed. The DEA derives its authority from the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, its implementing regulations, and various executive orders…Patty responded that Villasana's own testimony ran contrary to this declaration's assertions.
In this case, Task Force Officer Villasana submitted a similar declaration. He states that the DEA’s decision “to proceed with such an operation is entirely discretionary, and not mandated by any statute, rule, or policy.” Whether and how to conduct such an undercover investigation and operation is “necessarily discretionary in nature.” Villasana did not try to give advance notice to Patty that the Task Force would be using his truck because of operation’s covert nature, the risks of injury and potential for damage if something went wrong, and the uncertainty about whether other individuals (including Patty) could be trusted.
Patty argues that DEA policy prohibited Villasana’s actions… He points to Villasana’s deposition testimony that “[i]f we’re going to use somebody else’s vehicle, we have to have permission,” and that “if [Villasana] knew who the owner was and the informant would have said to [him], Hey, listen, so-and-so, [the owner] owns this truck and I’m going to do this, [he] would say, Well, we need to get ahold of [the owner].”The judge points out that Villasana also testified that he was "not aware" of any policy instructing him to notify the vehicle's owner of its potential use in a drug sting operation, nor was he under any obligation to even determine the identity of the owner through DMV records. No permission was needed, at least not as stipulated by DEA policy. What Villasana spoke of in his testimony was something left solely to his discretion.
So, it would appear the government -- especially law enforcement agencies -- can take stuff but are under no legal obligation to return it in working order. Nor are they expected to compensate the owner for any damage sustained.
This argument, perhaps the most solid of the multiple presented, dead ends thusly.
In any event, Patty fails to explain how these constitutional provisions specifically prescribed a different course of conduct or specifically proscribed what the officers did. The record shows that the DEA task force members did not know Patty’s name, were under the impression that his driver was the vehicle’s rightful lessee, and third parties caused the vehicle damage. To borrow a phrase from qualified immunity law, Patty has not shown that the “clearly established law” in place when the undercover operation was planned and implemented made the officers’ conduct unconstitutional.In the end, it's the crime-fighting ends that justify the means -- even if the means include destroying half of a businessman's fleet of vehicles and turning him into a potential drug cartel target.
Orchestrating a covert controlled drug delivery using a vehicle and driver unconnected to any law enforcement organization to obtain evidence against a suspected drug cartel smuggling operation to prosecute those responsible fits within and furthers these policy goals. Deciding to carry out the operation without giving the vehicle owner advance notice and obtaining his consent is consistent with maintaining the covert nature of the operation and therefore with the policy goals.Furthermore -- quoting previous Eighth and Ninth Circuit Court decisions:
Patty argues that Villasana’s testimony shows that he did not make a conscious decision whether to get Patty’s permission to use the truck, and therefore did not consider public-policy interests. But “the proper inquiry under prong two is not whether [the government actor] in fact engaged in a policy analysis when reaching his decision but instead whether his decision was ‘susceptible to policy analysis.’” Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559, 572 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325). Courts have consistently held that covert law-enforcement operations like the one at issue here are susceptible to policy analysis and covered by the discretionary function exception.
"...discretionary, policy-based decisions concerning undercover operations are protected from civil liability by the discretionary function exception, even when those decisions result in harm to innocent third parties."TL; DR, courtesy of Andy Vickers, Patty's attorney:
A federally deputized corporal from the Houston Police Department decides to pay your small company’s driver to drive your truck to the Mexican border, load it up with illegal drugs, and try to catch some bad guys. He knows that the driver is lying to “the owner” – although he doesn’t know your name or identity and doesn’t bother to find out. The bad guys outwit the cops. Your company’s driver is killed. Your truck is riddled with bullet holes.Law enforcement immunity, combined with deference towards the judgment of those in the business of busting bad guys means it's almost impossible to force the government to reimburse private citizens for property taken without permission and damaged during the course of its "covert" use. Maybe the DEA could just bypass the legal process and cut Patty a check for the repairs? You know, just to be "neighborly" and show that we're all Americans here and no one -- not even the Drug Enforcement Agency -- is "above' making amends when things go horribly wrong.
Query: is our federal government liable to pay for the damages to you and your property?
Answer: Nope.
Not a chance. To do so without an accompanying legal piece of paper explaining how this payment is not an admission of wrongdoing would be to admit fault, however implicitly. And the government doesn't want to be facing any more lawsuits than it already does. In this case, it saw a chance for a swift, cheap dismissal (thanks to some poorly-aimed arguments) and took it. And, barring a successful appeal, the decision continues the trend of courts finding law enforcement officers and federal agents culpable for their actions in only the most egregious cases.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: craig patty, damage, dea, destruction, lawrence chapa, liability, sting
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Helping the police, only ever helps the police.
Lesson learned.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh yeah, FYTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No doubt, there has already been a "U.S. against A Bunch of Assets" case, and the assets are in the hands of the DEA, but I don't see that as a problem. First his truck was damaged, then there was a forfeiture case; so his claim is antecedent to the forfeiture claim.
That is: I think he can make a case that he should have been recompensed out of the assets before the government forfeited the residue. As an non-ally party of the drug lords he is certainly entitled to that recompense, and his claim comes first.
Of course, that will have a negative effect on the DEA, since they won't get to keep all those cool assets; they'll have to fork some back to him. Does anyone outside of DEA have a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
Have to be 18-wheeler to even be $100K damages. $500 worth of Bondo and paint on 10-year old truck is probably closer to truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
Yeah, that logic works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
In any case, please point to where the record shows that the DEA requested that the employee initiate his course of action? I'm distinguishing that from what I did find in the record: A statement that the employee notified the DEA of his proposed course of action, along with an implication that the DEA acquiesced to that plan.
Where's the statement that it was the DEA who came up with the plan in the beginning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
The informant told the DEA that the cartel had asked him to deliver the drugs, and that he happened to have a truck that he could manipulate his boss into letting him use. It was the DEA who greenlighted the plan to actually use the truck to make the delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
The DEA along with the task force involved planned the operation - suggesting otherwise is stupid - really, really freaking stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
Considering that when a person is typically arrested by the DEA and refuses to take a plea deal, they apply each and every single charge they can come up with (regardless as to whether or not they'll stick).
Why should his treatment of them be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
Have to be 18-wheeler to even be $100K damages. $500 worth of Bondo and paint on 10-year old truck is probably closer to truth."
Ya you have no idea how much 18 wheelers are worth, a new truck can set you back 200k-500k, you want your own trailers new can cost upwards of 100k. Your truck may only be worth $500 cause it is covered in bondo, get a grip, what he is asking for is very resonable, unreasonable would have been to sue for 20 million. Get your head out of your ass idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
the taxpayers can get mad at the people they elected who put those cops in charge
if they had to pay out, maybe next time they'd think twice. nah, who am i kidding; it's not their money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, if it's good for the government to do so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, it will be really embarrassing to explain to the children what we did with the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only our judicial system were to actually read and apply the law in proper order from top (US Constitution) to bottom (Federal, then State, then local law) rather than from bottom to top as they do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never let it be said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tow was probably 5x that amount.
The story I read suggested that the driver was killed in the cab, with the entire cab shot up. That's a medical waste clean-up before a body shop would accept it. Or even a scrap yard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or were those shots all fired by other persons, who were not affiliated with the government, and who were committing a crime by those acts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or are you making a specific allegation that the DEA, as an agency, committed larceny? More broadly, do you allege that the DEA, as an agency, committed a specific crime? And can you establish all of the elements of that alleged crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The owner's private property was taken for public use, without just (or any) compensation. Obviously the lawyers will use some exception to the exception to the law on raising gophers to prove that this somehow doesn't directly violate the U.S. constitution, but hey, I'm just reading exactly what it says.
1. In that the truck was the owner's private property.
2. In that the owner's private property was taken for public use in law enforcement.
3. In that no compensation was given.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that it was the employee who used the vehicle improperly, that the ones causing damage were not government employees, and that the DEA didn't force anyone to do anything. This was a sting operation, and it wasn't planned by the dead employee. The DEA knowingly set it up and knew that the employee was using the truck.
There can be no doubt that the government took an individual's private property for their use, and that they were expecting conflict involving the vehicle (otherwise what was the point of having all the armed officers around?). The reason this is news is because, once again, we have something that is legal but is also wrong.
Maybe the reason we have over 2.4 million people in jail, almost half of which are there for stupid drug charges, is because our country has forgotten the difference between the something that is illegal and something that is unethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I am making this specific allegation. The DEA did not own the truck. They DEA did not have the owner's permission to use the truck. If anyone else who was not the DEA did the same thing, they would be hauled up on charges of grand theft.
The DEA, as an agency, committed felony larceny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyhow, you're alleging this under Texas law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if you want to make the argument that the Texas law against unauthorized use of a vehicle is in conflict with some federal statute, or that the DEA in Texas is not at all bound by that state's laws, then then might get to be a complicated and interesting argument.
Original principles of federalism, though, would largely indicate to me —in the absence of some over-riding Congressional scheme— that the United States expects DEA agents to obey the criminal laws of the state where they operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just saying that this is clearly theft by the DEA based on the fact that if I did the exact same thing the DEA did, I would certainly have been brought up on charges of grand theft at the very least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An ancient principle holds that it's legally unreasonable for someone to commit a crime, and therefore it's legally unforseeable that a crime will be committed. That common principle does not hold today in all jurisdictions, but I myself tend to think it legally proper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or do you instead allege that the DEA intended to pay the owner's employee for conversion of the property to their own uses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
CHAPTER 31. THEFT
But the person whom we have been referring to as the “employee”, and who actually appears from the record to be a lessee, did in fact have consent to operate the vehicle.
There's no allegation that the truck's owner was coerced to grant the lease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Consent is not effective if: (A) induced by deception or coercion"
Reading the history, it sounded to me like he CI got a job as a truck driver to move drugs. His intent and purposes in getting the job were hidden from the owner, who would have been unlikely to grant the lease to a CI who intended to move drugs in it.
But that's a bold assertion without evidence. So lets assume that both the drug running and CI status came after he got the job.
Now lets look at what the CI did in the runup to the shootout:
Upon being contracted to move the drugs to Houston, he informed the DEA that he would lie to the owner to get approval to travel to Houston. If, as you suggest, as a lessee he had the right to travel as he wished, why did the CI: A) inform the owner that he was going to Houston, B) Justify to the owner why he was going to Houston, C) Inform the DEA that he needed to inform the owner, and D) Inform the DEA of the justification he was using with the Owner?
His justification to both his handler and the owner suggest he needed the owner's consent to take the truck to Houston, and he failed to disclose his true intents to get that consent. Had he put it more simply, the argument could be made that he was only informing the owner of where he would be, but the part about getting the truck serviced was a strange detail to include (unless he needed to justify taking the truck), and it would still beg the question why he needed to do inform the owner of his whereabouts at all, if the owner had no say in the use of the truck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're admitting consent, and not alleging revocation. Instead, you're saying, at best, that the use was outside the scope of a limited license granted by the lease. I think we need to see the lease terms before jumping to that conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not admit consent in the statement you posted. I used a common logic tactic in which, after arguing a position, I posit a scenario in which my position becomes compromised and I am forced to argue argument still stands. I remain unconvinced that the CI had a career as a trucker, and then either A) got randomly hired by the DEA to traffic drugs and agreed or B) got into drug smuggling and then got turned into a CI.
I would argue we need to see the lease terms before jumping to the conclusion that the CI just really liked telling the owner that he where he was going. The conclusion that the CI did not need approval to go to Houston has some facts running against it, and so your general conclusion should not be jumped to either.
If the DEA hired the CI without him previously having any drug contacts, and the CI did not tell the owner that he was performing outside contracts, he may very well have been in violation of his lease (this theory is supported by the subterfuge inherent in his justifications to the owner). There are also questions of whether the drug running violated a prohibition on illegal activity common to leases in general. And then if he was a drug runner first, you have questions about the hiding of the arrest that lead to him becoming a CI was disclosed to the owner.
In general, no matter if it was a violation of his lease, let me bring up one of the definitions of deception in the cited law: I would argue that withholding the information that he was working for the DEA prevented the owner from revoking consent. As well, withholding the information that he was running drugs.
Again I ask you, why justify the trip to Houston if not to conceal his intent and prevent the withdrawal of consent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But regardless of the specific words used, it essentially boils down to the same dispute.
The employer grants permission to use some equipment, and then finds that the employee has used the equipment in a way that the employer had not anticipated. Is that a crime? The Techdirt consensus generally runs the other way.
It was a somewhat off-hand comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
28 U.S.C. § 2680
The exception is not limited merely to causes of action which are styled as misrepresention or deceit. “Arising out of” looks to the underlying facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have me there sir. In fact this statute would appear to immunize both in the case that the lease was acquired by deception and in the case where he violated the lease. While it wouldn't immunize them from criminal fines and sanctions related to the crime, it does immunize them from agency in regards to the civil claims of destruction of property.
The DEA still committed a crime. However there is no legal remedy for the torts committed in association with that crime.
However, this does give rise to the constitutional question of the purpose of the just compensation clause of the 5th amendment, and is one that likely has to be addressed by congress or the supreme court given fluctuating cout decisions at both the state and federal level. As discussed in this paper: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=wmborj the clear intent of the just compensation clause is to prevent a party from having to bear the cost of damages and actions from which the community as a whole benefits. Exempting themselves from cases where they lied to people to get consent and deprive them of their property undermines that purpose. But the courts have for some reason determined otherwise.
That said, you win. I can find no way around the combination of 28 U.S.C. § 2680 and relevant case law on the fifth amendment. Nice debating with you.
As an aside: I am unsure why they had to completely eliminate the rules of tort claims procedure and venue establishment in granting immunity to certain types of claims, but it appears nuking the rules from orbit was the approach taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the DEA did commit a crime: they stole a truck, then knowingly used that truck in a manner that a reasonable person could easily see is very risky. Last I checked, when us plebes commit a felony and unplanned bad things happen as a result of it, we are responsible for the unplanned bad things as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or do you have a particular allegation, for instance under the Texas definition of theft? Or under some other state's definition perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I will instead ask again, “felony theft” under Texas law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Given your comments other places, I would think you would be more appreciative of the purpose and intent of language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Was there any showing that agents, employees, or affiliates of the government fired shots at the truck's cab?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the law is shaped just so and manipulated in just such a way the results, the carnage, the incarceration - insane.
No culpability because covert? Thank you rule of law shaped to protect government agents, employees and affiliates - all others' well-being be damned.
Larceny, Lies & Murder - When you're in charge you shape the charges, scenes, evidence and the oft resulting trail of tears.
Law, in and of itself, is going rogue shaped by rogues and carried out by negligent, narcissistic purveyors of fascism and tyranny - all in the name of the greater good. Fuck the dea, fbi, cia and harvard law until someone, somewhere can step the fuck up and be accountable for the absolute bullshit excuse that has become distinctly American jurisprudence.
This guy had his life forced into a precarious position by the actions of the state. Anything that spins that into "no obligation" is a fucking joke worthy of contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand theft auto
Taking someone's vehicle without their permission is grand theft, and there is a statute for that. The different course of conduct that is prescribed is that all government agents should be acting ethically and legally, from the get-go. If the DEA can commandeer your property at their "discretion," that flies in the face of the concepts of property ownership and of citizens even having rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The owner did not expect to have the use of the vehicle during the time it was being used for the drug running - he had given the OK for the employee to use it. (Just not in this manner.) The vehicle was impounded, but impounding of a vehicle is not a "taking" when that vehicle has been involved in a multiple-death shooting and is evidence, and they returned it before the end of the month.
They used it, they damaged it, but they didn't really "take" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The lawyers fucked up here by dropping the 1983 suit and pressing the 5A issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No plausible showing at all of intent to permanently deprive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So it's OK for the DEA to blow up his truck and not pay for it as long as it wasn't planned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helping the police, only ever helps the police.
Lesson learned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All hail our noble Drug War warriors. Your tax dollars at work, and way more of them than either you or the IRS thought were involved. Everybody makes mistakes, but to *really* screw up takes govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
status
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the driver "agreed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the driver "agreed"?
At the end of the day, I think Nietzsche has it covered quite succinctly: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
When the tactics of the "good guys" start to be indistinguishable from those of the "bad guys", it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation. Because lets face it - the DEA's actions here - aside from the court fight - are identical to some of the tactics cartels use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the driver "agreed"?
I think we're past tactics, it's looking like their motivation is also the same: power and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the driver "agreed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biggest Lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Biggest Lesson
Now you are being unfair. I am certain that they very much appreciate having a stiff to pin all the blame on. They probably shot him themselves in order to mitigate their damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things
Second, did they really "hire" a civilian to drive a truck into a Los Zetas trade then bust it and thought the driver would survive? From some documentaries I have seen, those guys aren't your friendly neighbourhood thieves.
Think about it... You are heavily armed, trading a real truckload of weed, the driver is someone you don't know, DEA shows up. Now multi choice question, who do you shoot first?
A. The driver
B. The guy sitting on the left side of the truck
C. The only person you don't know at the scene
In my opinion there is no way the guy could have made it out alive. Meaning the "things went horribly wrong" part should have been the expected outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two things
The case law on the fifth amendment plays this out, and really needs to be addressed by congress or the supreme court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two things
The DEA isn't liable because the informant lied to his boss? How does that work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two things
Granted I'm not a lawyer and not even a US citizen so basicly I don't have an understanding of this law. That said I couldn't find anything in the paragraph (tried to follow links to other sections but got lost, darn you law language) that would apply in that case.
Just for personal understanding, which sub-paragraph (if thats the word: a-n ) does or should apply in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two things
The FTCA was enacted in order to routinize some —but not all— of that work. Rather than having a private bill enacted by Congress for every singular set of circumstances, now, instead, Congress has partially waived sovereign immunity and the federal courts handle some tort claims against the United States. Congress, though, may still enact private legislation, and must still do so in order to grant relief in the classes of cases which fall under under the exceptions scattered throughout the FTCA.
Anyhow, the exception for cases “arising out of ... misrepresentation [or] deceit” is paragraph (h).
See the earlier discussion above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actively supported by the US government, and in a war with various 'organized crime' groups, the DEA has known to accidentally 'lose' hundreds of TONS of heroin, cocaine and Marijuana from evidence storage, and to have several billion dollars in unexplained funding that isn't covered by any government system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again the two-teired caste system reveals itself.
Anyone in the DoJ who breaks the law simply walks and is untouchable.
(I'd qualify that by saying officers have to be acting in pursuit of enforcing the law, but I bet they mix their drinks in pursuit of enforcing the law)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again the two-teired caste system reveals itself.
It's the worst sort of hypocrisy. Whatever supposed evils there are in illicit drugs, they don't come anywhere near crapfests like the Drug War. Vast sums of taxpayers' money spent on filling prisons, ruining lives, militarizing police and undermining the justice system, perpetuating institutionalized racism, corrupting police, prosecutors, judges, and politicians, all in countless pointless efforts to save society from consensual acts!
We already went through this with Prohibition, yet we're doing it again. That time, we made the Mafia rich. This time, we're making the Zetas rich, and exporting this insanity to countries on other continents. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once again the two-teired caste system reveals itself.
That really drives the point home, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once again the two-teired caste system reveals itself.
This time we're also making the so-called "criminal justice system" rich. That way it will never allowed to end. Smart, smart, smart! (for them, that is)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank the authoritarian-submissives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, EVERYONE is authoritarian-submissive. It's not just the Americans.
We have strong instincts to obey magistrates and official laws (especially if posted), and this helps keep the system from breaking down. Amusingly, we see this in opinions from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who are happy to say This is the way things are, so there without any explanation as to why or the rationale by which it achieved its conclusion.
It also means we tend to trust that those in authority are there because they have the expertise and wisdom to do so and not because they bought their way there, or were friends of the president.
Granted, it may be a tad worse in the US than other places that might teach their kids critical thinking skills at an early age. We've seen in plenty of platforms (yes, I'm looking at you, Texas GOP) the preclusion of Critical Thinking in K-12 syllabuses because critical thought leads to questioning authority which leads to mischief. Maybe they expect children to naturally develop proactive self-interest on their eighteenth birthday.
But in the meantime, no, there are people who just positively hate change and love the status quo and are eager to follow all laws no matter how stupid or silly they are. And yet they still know to drive flow-of-traffic (and not 55mph) in the fast lane.
I've said this before. People are people. You can't blame them for behaving incorrectly, for values voting candidates against their best interests, for not working hard enough, for demanding too much (or too little pay) to govern the people you got, not the people you wish you had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEA got caught green handed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DEA got caught green handed?
You are *so* right. I haven't seen any criticism of the Democrats in the past seven years. Chyaa, right.
Red Team vs. Blue Team is a childish game, and you should be ashamed you're still playing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one hell of a tax return
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does civil immunity have to do with a felony conspiracy that has as a consequence a felony murder? This is criminal act pretending to be "civil".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then the owner is screwed.
The owner hired the employee to drive the truck. The owner's truck was transporting a load of drugs. The employee is now dead at the hands of another. Erase intent. Make employers strictly liable for all acts of employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What to do when the DEA steals your truck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the dea are criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the owner had theft insurance, the insurance company should pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutional Law
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Does the owner have the ability to use his property, or is he now deprived of a truck in working condition?
I'd say that the deprivation of that property is a direct result of the governmental actions, wouldn't you?
That's just the plain law. If the government doesn't like it and wants to carve out a "cowboy secret ops" exception, they are welcome to (try to) change the law, but no, you have to pay for the truck. The employee and the reputation, no. Truck, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get the facts straight
He was just a driver. He had no lease on the truck. Yes, the DEA knew it was not his truck and that he had lied to me to be able and get the truck from where it was supposed to be....North Texas....to south Texas....to do the controlled sting that resulted in his death when he returned to Houston
Craig Patty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get the facts straight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Re: Re: Better headline: Trucking company attempts $6.3M cash grab from taxpayers.
The crime boss did not actually kill anyone. He just asked someone else to do it.Yeah, that logic works.