Federal Court Says Destroying Someone's House To Apprehend A Fugitive Might Be A Constitutional Violation
from the FINALLY dept
Law enforcement has a pretty cavalier attitude towards private property. Whatever property they aren't unjustifiably seizing from drivers and passengers, they're razing to the ground. Sometimes they destroy whole houses during plain vanilla warrant service. Other times, situations are determined to be stand-offs in need of wholesale destruction, even when officers are facing down an empty house.
You'd think this sort of brazen and unjustified destruction would result in successful lawsuits to recover costs and damages incurred by these actions. But you'd be wrong. A successful lawsuit for law enforcement destruction of private property is more rare than a successful lawsuit over property seized via asset forfeiture.
Courts tend to defer to law enforcement expertise, often opining that this collateral damage is just an unfortunate side effect of good police work. Officers are free to overcome any obstacles placed in the way of their objectives, and if that means entire walls of houses need to be destroyed, that's just the way it is. Who are we (this is the judges speaking) to second-guess decisions made in the heat of the moment, even when said moment is a daylong "standoff."
Two Appeals Courts have issued precedential decisions that affect two entire circuits (the Ninth and Tenth), which make lawsuits brought in those jurisdictions even more unlikely to prevail. But a recent lawsuit -- featuring representation by the Institute for Justice (which has also had success fighting bogus forfeitures) -- has just experienced some limited success. It was brought by a woman whose residence was the victim of an overzealous Texas SWAT team that apparently felt the only way it could apprehend a suspect was by causing more than $50,000 of damage to her home.
It's not like the McKinney PD didn't have options. Vicki Baker, the plaintiff, gave them plenty, as Billy Binion reports for Reason.
In July 2020, Wesley Little—who Vicki Baker had terminated as her handyman about a year and a half prior—arrived at Baker's home in McKinney, Texas. Baker's daughter answered. Recognizing him from news reports that he was wanted for the abduction of a 15-year-old girl, she left the premises and called the police.
SWAT agents soon arrived. They set off explosives to open the garage entryway, detonated tear gas grenades inside the building, ran over Baker's fence with an armored vehicle, and ripped off her front door, despite being given a garage door opener, a code to the back gate, and a key to the home. The house was unlivable when they were through.
Baker's insurance company said it wasn't liable for damages caused by the government. The government -- in this case, the city of McKinney -- said it wasn't liable because she wasn't a victim of anything. The police had a legitimate reason to destroy her house (the apprehension of a fugitive). Sorry, but not anyone's fault, the city shrugged.
Baker sued. And a federal court has come down on her side. It very plausibly is the city's problem and it can be held liable for the unnecessary destruction of this home, says the court [PDF].
Because at this stage the Court construes all well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Baker has plausibly alleged an official policy promulgated by the City of McKinney. As alleged in the Complaint, after the City’s destruction of her property, Baker requested compensation from the City of McKinney, but the City denied the request, stating that there was ‘no liability on the part of the City or any of its employees.’” This assertion is sufficient to plausibly allege a “a single unconstitutional action by a municipal actor”— that is, a denial of the constitutionally mandated just compensation following a taking by the government.
As the court notes, this isn't the end of the discussion. As it points out earlier, there exists no precedent in its jurisdiction or in the Fifth Circuit saying the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to incidents like these. But rather than use that lack of precedent as a means to dismiss her suit, it comes to the conclusion that destroying a home (and refusing to compensate the innocent homeowner) is a Fifth Amendment violation.
The City asks this Court to adopt what would constitute a per se rule—that destruction to private property resulting from the exercise of valid police power cannot constitute a Fifth Amendment Taking. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit have directly found a taking that requires just compensation when destruction of property results from the exercise of valid police power. The City correctly points out that other circuits have foreclosed recovery under similar circumstances.
[...]
However, both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court have suggested such action could amount to a taking… In Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, the Supreme Court opined that if “the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, the natural tendency of human nature would be to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared.”
This federal court decides that sort of buck-passing stops here, at least for the time being. Not every claim is a valid Takings Clause claim, but this one appears to be at this point.
While the Court acknowledges that governmental bodies are not “liable under the Just Compensation Clause to property owners every time policemen break down the doors of buildings to foil burglars thought to be inside[,]” Nat’l Bd. of Young Men’s Christian Ass’ns v United States, 395 U.S. 85, 92 (1969) (emphasis added), Baker has alleged damage to her private property—and the City’s refusal to compensate for such damage—that plausibly amounts to a Fifth Amendment violation.
That's good enough to avoid dismissal. The same goes for the state law claims under the Texas constitution.
Baker pleaded that her home was intentionally destroyed in the government’s effort to apprehend Little. The affirmative actions Baker alleges include Department officers: (1) storming the house; (2) breaking windows; (3) knocking down the garage door; (4) knocking down the backyard fence; and (5) firing dozens of explosive tear gas cannisters into the home. Such actions were intentional, even if the City’s motives were to secure a threat to public safety. To be sure, the City itself indicates “the [Department] dr[ew] up plans” before busting into Baker’s home to apprehend Little. The resulting damage, therefore, can hardly be considered “incidental consequence[s] of the City’s actions.” Lastly, Baker alleges the City took her property for a public use—apprehension of a dangerous fugitive whose freedom threatened the community and public as a whole.
Baker has sufficiently pleaded a takings claim under the Texas Constitution. The actions taken by the Department officers damaged Baker’s home—that much appears undisputed. Even if the government did not intend to damage Baker’s property to apprehend Little, the City was substantially certain such damage would result. It is unreasonable for the City to suggest the Department officers stormed Baker’s house, broke the windows, knocked down the garage door, rammed down the backyard fence with a tank-like vehicle, and fired dozens of explosive tear gas cannisters into the home without a degree of certainty that such actions would cause damage to the property. As such, and after considering the pleadings and case law cited above, the Court finds Baker has sufficiently pleaded a violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution as to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
This doesn't mean the city of McKinney can't still find a way to screw this homeowner. But this does definitely make it more difficult to escape the lawsuit. And that extra degree of difficulty may be all it takes for the city to cut a check. To push it further might mean setting precedent at a higher level that would make cities and law enforcement agencies liable for excessive damage to private property. And that's precedent no law enforcement agency in the nation is in any hurry to see set.
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: due process, law enforcement, property destruction
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experiment!
Because you ninnies are afraid of a virus that 99.7% survive, no worse than usual flu season.
"15 days" of lockdown now past 15 months! No end in sight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
You could probably survive having your balls cut off with appropriate medical care, so by your logic, why won't you let something at them with a pair shears?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
You mean, like measles vaccine? Tetanus vaccine? Rabies vaccine? Cholera vaccine? Tell us more! How does getting a tetanus vaccine interfere with your civil rights? How does taking a cholera vaccine before traveling to some parts of the world interfere with your rights? Inquiring minds wants to know!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without consequence!'
I've heard so often how telling people that they either get vaccinated or there might be consequences like sane people not wanting them around is a violation of the rights of the would-be plague rats but unless the 'violation' in question is a violation of the right to put the lives of everyone around you without consequences, something which does not exist, then I'm likewise baffled exactly how someone's rights are being threatened or infringed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without consequence
These guys don't believe in actual freedom, they believe in the adolescent idea of freedom without consequence or responsibility. They should be able to do anything they want to do, no matter the cost or restriction to you that happen in the process. Simply asking them to be responsible is a violation of their rights in their minds.
One of the sad things about the modern world is the realisation as to how few people apparently managed to enter the adult would without emotionally or mentally progressing past puberty. It's just especially sad in this case because had they been responsible and not spent the last 18 months whining about basic healthcare guidelines, a lot more people would be alive now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without consequ
Nothing like a disaster to allow people to take off their masks and show who they really are, for good and ill, it's just a pity that while countless people have stepped up and shown the ability for self-sacrifice and a willingness to put their lives on the line for others so many others have turned out to be sociopathic self-centered children cosplaying as adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without consequ
Lol.
Niggling auto-fellating PaulT is so “evolved.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without con
Auto fellate all you like, I just have an interest in facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'You have a RIGHT to be a crybaby bitch
That’s pathetic even for you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without consequ
"One of the sad things about the modern world is the realisation as to how few people apparently managed to enter the adult would without emotionally or mentally progressing past puberty."
Puberty is giving them too much credit. They're currently at the stage of tantrum-throwing four year olds.
800k US dead so far - more than every war, including both world wars, the US has fought since the 19th century - but they're moron enough to think that's all just backdrop they can "own the libs" with.
Ironically some of the numbers now in are showing that enough of these death seekers will end up having found it in time to seriously skew the next election results in borderline red states and counties away from the GOP.
They're dying for no point or gain, because pretending Covid is a flu has become loyalty test visavi Dear Leader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without con
And dear leader is uptodate with his covid vaccinations, including the third booster shot, and Alex Jones throws a hissy fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Bullets are harmless!' said the person wearing several vests
I never thought I'd say the following words and probably would have bet good money on never doing so but maybe they should consider if Trump knows something they don't...
That aside that is just priceless and thanks for sharing, Trump turned Covid political and threw his cultists under the bus and they're throwing fits that he's not getting under the wheels with them, who ever could have seen that coming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's exactly how we got Jan 6th. Lots of useful idiots thought their tyrannical leader would protect them despite a consistent pattern of behavior to the contrary, then got all upset when it didn't happen, and still they haven't turned on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without
As usual, I'm going to wait till Knowledge Fight do their discussion on Alex rather than experience it first hand. but I'm actually looking forward to how he reacts to the news that his leader (along with many others including Fox according to what I've read) are telling him one thing then doing the other in public. I'd somewhat prefer it if they couldn't tell people to endanger themselves and others while doing exactly what they program their followers not to do, but there's some entertainment in seeing how the cult reacts when they realise the hypocrisy involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk wit
Have you heard the latest? Margarine Trailer Queen owns stock in Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Granted, it's not a lot, but still, she's out there proudly proclaiming that she's not vaccinated and publicly spreading disinformation, while owning stock in the companies that make the very products that she disparages.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-vac cine-shares-b1979473.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk
That just means she will not let principles get in the way of making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without con
The challenge of Evolution is that people see the middle, and mostly assume the curve of human intelligence is in that middle. But there are edge case people whom are really dumb, and those people are sold LOTs of hogwash but lack the mental power to figure out what is real and what is hogwash. Pile on that the hogwash is sent to them 24/7 now a days and you have the bottom 25% more or less unable to function and a system that uses them for there own ends.
Of course telling these people they are victims and watch the reaction, because they've been trained to deal with information that does not conform to there world views as suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'I have a RIGHT to put your life at risk without con
As I said, one of the things that happens when you move from being an adolescent to being an adult is that you realise that your actions have effects outside of yourself, and that you're not actually the centre of the universe. Some of the people who think that 800k is not enough because they want to go shopping without a mask haven't exited that thought process, others believe that they are protected because they voted a certain way. I'm tired of treating those people as adults, and at some point you do have to remind children that they don't understand the real world.
For context, I'm about to visit family members in a way that's costing me a lot of money, but I'll be wearing a mask with my fully vaccinated arse the whole way. I will confront idiots along the way if needed, but I'd rather be able to visit my similarly protected family without having to confront people who peaked at 12 years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
You probably should have stayed under your bridge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
...said no rational person not on potent hallucinogens, ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
"Because you ninnies are afraid of a virus that 99.7% survive"
If you guys are going to downplay the effects of long COVID and the knock-on effects of overwhelmed hospitals and burned out medical staff, while opposing the actual means by which this whole thing will end, you could at least use the correct verifiable figure for the death rate to focus on.
""15 days" of lockdown now past 15 months!"
Where the fuck do you live where you've been locked down for 15 months? I can understand why you've lost your mind isolating yourself for that long, but most other people didn't need to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an exper
"If you guys are going to downplay the effects of long COVID and the knock-on effects of overwhelmed hospitals and burned out medical staff..."
No need to even go that far.
800k dead, and the number is going to be beyond a million, easy, before the US gets it under control.
Here's how you can tell just how horrible the alt-right is, though - one million dead americans is just a funny number to them. Not a single solitary fsck is given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an e
Oh, it goes further than that, as in there's numerous charts going around that prove that not only do many more unvaccinated vs. vaccinated die right now, but there's a large discrepancy between red and blue states.
These people might take the wrong lesson from that of course, but if you're in a position where you thing that a 9/11 per day and a total of WWII casualties dying is worth "freedom" somehow, I've already lost patience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject
"...there's numerous charts going around that prove that not only do many more unvaccinated vs. vaccinated die right now, but there's a large discrepancy between red and blue states."
One of the side effects of which is that in coming elections a number of borderline red states and counties are going to end up blue due to alt-right morons doing a lot more dying or getting too ill to go vote.
I have a really, really hard time not to declare the enhanced die-off of this group of dangerous lunatics a solid silver lining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an e
You're awfully optimistic in thinking that the US will ever get this under control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject
"You're awfully optimistic in thinking that the US will ever get this under control."
Oh, it will. Eventually. It's just that the various covid variants are going to pinball around the nurgle and Trump congregations until enough of them have died off even those dimbulbs start realizing that Dear Leader's little loyalty test is killing them.
Best case...I mean, worst case scenario, the 25-30% still subscribing to the fascist playbook and invested in being morons end up dead at the end while saner people who vaccinated and abided by basic medical guidelines get a future bereft of the malicious nincompoops who'll no doubt all be happy to die as long as it means "the libs" get stuck paying for the burial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an exper
It's a good thing our friends across the pond have some proper fact checking going on, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-25/fact-check-is-melbourne-most-locked-down-city/100560172
It's worth the read.
The TL;DR is that some places in South America appear to hold the record at between 8 and 9 continuous months of some form of lockdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an exper
I think it's sufficiently obvious that we can now assume that a long-enough lock-down period results in masturbation of the highest order, and that hairy palms have been replaced with a lifetime membership in the Poster Boy Club for proving that the Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
That is, well on its way to taking down our democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, blue's lost his mind for ten years at minimum and counting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
"Because you ninnies are afraid of a virus that 99.7% survive, no worse than usual flu season."
Are you perhaps talking about that virus which has, within less than two years, killed more americans already than both world wars, vietnam, korea, iraq and afghanistan combined?
A five year old would grok the math and understand how bad that was.
Congratulations. Your desire to "own the libs" has officially retarded your mind to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
"15 days" of lockdown now past 15 months! No end in sight!
Thanks to science-denying pieces of shit like you.
Here's hoping you become one of the 0.03%, asshole!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
Because you fuckwits are afraid of a vaccine and refuse to behave like there is contagious shit around, we still have a pandemic instead of not having one anymore.
Grow the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
no worse then the flu?
Ok,
Compare Flu season avg of 28,000 to 38,000 Die with?
Over 10 times that number.
And its NOT the contagion thats the problem. Its our hospitals.
Isolating a person or group ISNT easy when 1000 people are in the Beds. And there is no more room at the Inn.
Without abit of Personal Isolation or Personal RESPONSIBILITY for YOUR spreading the germs. How many would be at home, giving it to Everyone in the home, and Probably Die.
AND no one knew/knows How bad it was going to get. ANd allot of idiots thought, a MASK was to much to care about it.
\
But if you had infected 1 child and it had died, and They Could figure out WHO infected the Child. Do you think you would be in Jail?
Or are you one of the people who think that killing off 2/3 of human population, to HELP the planet recover is a viable solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey blue, how's that Richard Liebowitz fund coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
Shh honey it’s past your bedtime and the adults are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an experimen
Billions of doses of the vaccines have been given with no widespread adverse reactions.
I suppose you'd be happier if they stopped giving people the smallpox and polio vaccines as well? I mean idiots have already brought back measles and other childhood diseases, why not bring back the big guns, right?
And you're afraid of a vaccine that billions of people have taken. Try this little experiment: Start asking the people you meet every day if they know anyone who's died from the vaccine. Then ask them if they know anyone who's died from Covid. Keep a list of anyone who says yes to either question.
If you're right about Covid and the vaccines, then this will prove your point. Go ahead and try it, I dare you.
Well, we now have a way of ending this pandemic, but some people are too fucking stupid to take advantage of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT no problem w gov't taking my body to inject an exper
"15 days" of lockdown now past 15 months! No end in sight!
Well, we now have a way of ending this pandemic, but some people are too fucking stupid to take advantage of it.
Yep.
Suffer the contagion or Take a few shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
🤨
After going through the same experiments that every other vaccine goes through and passing with flying colors, and after billions of doses have been administered with no long-term or severe adverse effects from the vaccine being widespread? And given the alternative?
No, I have no problem with receiving the vaccine or with vaccine mandates.
Among reported COVID-19 cases in the US, on average, about 98.2% of patients will survive, not 99.7%. Additionally, the mortality rates vary greatly depending on the exact strain of the virus, any preexisting conditions, and the age and economic status of the victims, as well as whether or not the victim was vaccinated.
Also, to put this into context, 1 in 500 Americans have died of COVID as of last July. That number has only grown since.
On a yearly basis, there are around 1 billion flu cases worldwide, and between 290,000 and 650,000 of those people die. That’s a mortality rate of between 0.029% and 0.065%. Even by your overestimated survival rate, COVID-19 would have a mortality rate of 0.3%, an order of magnitude larger than that for the flu.
This also doesn’t take into account a) the fact that there is no “COVID season” or b) the long-term complications from COVID-19 compared to the flu.
No place has been under continuous lockdown for 15 months. The longest known period of lockdown during the pandemic was for 8-9 months, and that wasn’t in the US, Canada, or the UK.
Also, no one who understood anything about the pandemic ever claimed it would be 15 days of lockdown.
And why do you think that is? Could it be due to the many who refuse to get vaccinated, and the many who refuse to wear masks?
Seriously, you say the vaccine isn’t necessary, but if more people like you would just take the stupid vaccine already, the lockdowns likely would have been over months ago. We also wouldn’t need vaccine mandates as much, if at all, outside of healthcare professionals.
Basically, it’s your own fault there’s no end in sight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only surprise
The only surprise here to anyone that has lived in McKinney is they didn't kill the dog or the person reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
minds boggle
"It is unreasonable for the City to suggest the Department officers stormed Baker’s house, broke the windows, knocked down the garage door, rammed down the backyard fence with a tank-like vehicle, and fired dozens of explosive tear gas cannisters into the home without a degree of certainty that such actions would cause damage to the property."
Does this city administration believe and claim that police officers - who are after all supposed to be tasked with protecting property amongst other things - of a suitably mature age, can doubt that smashing in windows causes property damage? Or firing explosive tear gas canisters into such a house, wouldn't necessarily cause property damage?
I have a Brooklyn Bridge I am itching to sell to a suitable purchaser. Could these officers please forward their details to me, so I can finalize the sale to them? They can be also buy some nice Everglade properties - formerly owned by some nice Nigerian dictators now passed on - if they so desire. And I would love to meet them - I have never met anyone with "Yesterday" on their Birth Certificate's Date Of Birth Entry before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You can't take that, that's one of our favorite perks!'
It is just all sorts of sickening that 'judge doesn't immediately rule in favor of police having the right to destroy whatever they want while on the clock' is both noteworthy and a positive development, however I'm sure that even seeing the potential for the ruling not going their way is going to have the city scrambling to settle as quickly as possible.
You can't have a legal ruling that the police aren't allowed to destroy whatever the hell they want after all, that would take all the fun out of it and force them to either act like responsible adults for once or face the dreaded Personal Consequences should that prove to be too difficult a task for them to manage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You can't take that, that's one of our favorite perks!'
The appeals court has this ruling on file already, Its only binding in that courts district right now. But its the case thats needed for something like this to higher courts by someone pointing out the courts are split on the issue.
At the supreme level we have a clear ideological split between personal rights and government taking and cops power to enforce laws, but its reasonable to see this one result in the states footing the bill since you would use a simple example of "what if the cops destroyed the supreme court justices residence" Who foots the bill for that one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on Judge, how are they going to catch criminals if they can't loot and destroy the homes of potential suspects and salt the earth to make sure nothing will grow? You can't expect them to do their job with one hand tied behind their backs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what the fuck does it mean, IT MIGHT BE?
any excuse to allow the 'security services' (and i use the term extremely loosely!) to get away with everything possible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if cops behaved correctly, government should still pay
The city as a whole is better able to afford repairing a house destroyed for a public purpose, than the innocent owner.
One of Winston Churchill's finest ideas as Britain's war leader was an insurance program to pay for homes destroyed by Nazi bombs. Under common law, the homeowner was out of luck (and private insurance excludes war damage or goes bankrupt), but Churchill strengthened national morale by nationalizing private losses suffered in the public cause.
(The insurance scheme started making money in 1942-43 as the Luftwaffe's attentions were drawn east, but losses resumed under V-1 attacks in 1944.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha. The cited case - Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council - was over the state declaring someone could not develop a pair of beachfront properties. Denying any development permission at all was eventually ruled by SCOTUS as a taking and compensation due. As a result, the state bought back the property, and then later allowed a subsequent buyer to build a house on one of the two lots. Obviously the original prohibition seems to have been arbitrary. Arbitrary is the very antithesis of what law should be.
I would think as a general rule, if the person directly seeking compensation is an innocent bystander or no incriminating evidence is found when the damage is done, then the police should pay for what they did. This would work as a damper on the degree of force and damage police would commit. Is it necessary to bash down a door, or would ringing the doorbell work equally well? How certain are they of the facts of the case? The logical extreme of the current case is - would the police be responsible for accidental injury or death to third parties? Without liability, there's no incentive stopping the reckless use of firearms, like in the Breonna Taylor case. Or.. "Sorry we accidentally tossed a flashbang into your baby's crib. Oh wait,... we're not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
onto the Subject.
Anyone willing to report a Governors Mansion as a Drug dealers base?
How many solutions can we have?
TENT the house, and SMOKE IT OUT, no tear gas, Just Smoke to make it hard to breathe. A little red wood/cedar would scare off more of the insects.
How about all that Swat armor we see on TV? The person in the story didnt mention any weapons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, our judicial system--spearheaded by SCOTUS--has done everything it can to eliminate all accountability for government service personnel. Maybe we the people should start treating criminals like the criminals they are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mckinney, where the open faced greed of city officials is to blackmail businesses.
You give to the "reelection fund"? No, well we can't enter your home but we CAN throw grenades inside, tear off the doors, smash the windows and collapse the roof. With no compensation.
If I was someone with a business, I'd be getting the fuckity out of McKinney before the blackmail begins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And apparently there are now rumors that people who WERE going to create jobs in McKinney have pulled out. Hastily.
So potentially MILLIONS in investment Poof! gone!
With city officials barefaced lying to cover up that they may have just screwed up their economy permanently, resulting in the fast slide of McKinney into an abandoned ghost town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]