Posted on 10/03/2008 3:34:48 AM PDT by marktwain
In a split decision Thursday, the state Supreme Court rejected a plea by a Kent property owner seeking compensation for damage done during a drug raid.
Affirming lower court decisions, five of the court's nine justices found the city of Kent was not required to pay $5,000 for damage to buildings owned by Leo Brutsche during a failed 2004 anti-methamphetamine operation.
During the raid, narcotics officers used battering rams to knock down doors in buildings owned by Brutsche while searching for a meth lab they believed Brutsche's son to be operating on the property, according to court records. No drugs were found, and Brutsche contends he offered officers keys to the doors before they began knocking them down.
At issue in the case was whether police departments are required to compensate bystanders for property damage, said John Muenster, an attorney representing Brutsche. On that count, Muenster said, the Supreme Court reaffirmed an existing ruling that the state must pay for damage that results from police negligence or misconduct.
Muenster said the decision was "a win for civil liberties principles," even though his client did not prevail.
"This decision will benefit other citizens and property owners," Muenster said. "It's a defeat for the police in that they were saying they're not liable for any damage done to private property when they're doing a raid."
Attorney Richard Jolley, who represented Kent in the appeal, described the decision as a win for his clients.
The majority's ruling, Jolley said, found the officers did not trespass during the raid, and that damage done in a raid is not a "taking" under the state constitution. The constitution would require compensation for a taking of private property, as in cases where the state acquires land through eminent domain.
A key concern for the city was that the high court would reverse earlier findings against Brutsche where the case was thrown out before it reached a jury. In those rulings, according to the Thursday's decision, lower court judges found no evidence that officers acted "in a negligent manner" on Brutsche's property.
"We're happy with the opinion," Jolley said. "For my clients, what this is saying is that they didn't trespass when they were executing the search warrant."
Four of the court's nine justices disagreed, finding that the case raised factual issues deserving a jury trial.
"There is nothing more reprehensible to the law than an agent of the government causing unnecessary and unreasonable damage to the person or property of a person while performing -- or purporting to perform -- a government function," Justice Tom Chambers said in one of two dissenting opinions issued in the case.
"There may be a legitimate basis for breaking down doors the owner stands ready and willing to unlock," he added. "But that use of force should be subject to scrutiny."
Speaking Thursday, Muenster pointed out that Brutsche was not suspected of any crime.
Brutsche's son, James Brutsche, was not charged in the case, according to court records. He later died in an explosion on the property.
Muenster said he plans to file a motion for reconsideration with the state Supreme Court, requesting that the justices allow the case to be heard by a King County jury.
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson.
All fully complied with.
Under these facts, reasonable minds could not differ.
I may be a little dense;please explain clearly why it would be reasonable to break and destroy the doors in preference to simply using the offered keys to open the door ?I do not recall the city denying the keys were offered.I think a reasonable person would have to conclude there was an element of “we’ll fix your wagon” vindictiveness in smashing property .Wanton destruction is not the mark of reasonable people.
“However, the evidence submitted by the City establishes that the search was authorized for evidence of methamphetamine manufacture and that such searches are often dangerous. There was also the risk of harm to Mr. Brutsche if he accompanied the officers, as well as the possibility that his presence would hamper or limit the search. The declarations of SRT Commander Villa and Officer Majack, which are largely uncontroverted, show that it was necessary to breach the doors and that James Brutsche’s (Mr. Brutsche’s son’s) actions dictated the need for the officers’ actions. These declarations describe the high risk associated with search warrants for methamphetamine manufacture and the apprehension of individuals in the methamphetamine trade. They explain that James Brutsche was suspected of being involved in the methamphetamine trade, that he tried to barricade himself and another suspect in the mobile home by using a dowel to bar a sliding glass door, and that the officers did not know whether he was arming himself or attempting to rally unknown persons in the home to engage in a fight with police. Further, the declarations describe the danger that evidence would be destroyed before they could search the premises. Villa’s declaration also explains that standard operating procedure is to bar access to search scenes during a search, in part to protect innocent bystanders.”
Battering rams don't need keys.
Me thinks he knew where his son's lab was....
I reckon had the police found the son's meth lab, there's a chance the son may still be alive and the warehouse it was in not damaged/destroyed. And if you think such manufacturing operation wasn't happening at the time of the raid, yet the son dies in a meth lab fire a year later - exactly what police had searched for, you're yeilding to a rather simplistic opinion.
Who will be cleaning up "Obama's police" (read demoncrat Gestapo) when they come to my door?
*I* sure won't pay for the cleanup.
And he blocked the sliding glass doors with a WOODEN DOWEL? My gosh,what a dangerous weapon! By the way,using a dowel in the track of patio doors has been recommended to homeowners for decades ,by the police and news or magazine articles on home security.The police also used to advise getting a dog to provide warning and some protection rather than a gun;but now the police are killing the family dog because it might pose a threat to officer safety!?
Interesting that some feel the very act of securing one's premises from intruders is sufficient to establish criminality of the property owner.
Let me once again state my firm opinion that most of these no-knock,SWAT and battering ram escapades are little more than an excuse for some cops to "play army".
The same laws that disregard the rights of those you don't like today can be used against YOU tomorrow.
No doubt,if all citizen homes could be opened by a passkey held only? by the authorities then there would be little crime,as it would be detected by the random searches .Although having to put all your stuff back in its place after the searchers have left could get annoying.Did you know the police practically trash a trucker's road tractor when searching,and don't put things back as they found it? I have this from several truckers who were searched ,and made late for deliveries because of having to put the seats back in ,replace all their belongings in the various storage bins,and so on.And locally ,we haven't forgotten the policemen who,having been told of a businessman going on vacation,gave his home special attention:they burglarized it!
Those with special powers must be held to the highest standards of behavior,and I submit encouraging property destruction and brutality does not.
I do not hate all police;I abhor the militarization of the police and the robberies where money and property are taken when the owner is not convicted of any crime.
I'll call your bluff. Prove it.
And he blocked the sliding glass doors with a WOODEN DOWEL?
THEY, the two drug dealers, blocked the door, rendering a key useless.
Interesting that some feel the very act of securing one's premises from intruders is sufficient to establish criminality of the property owner.
Running inside and barricading the doors to evade police is "securing one's premises?" What a lame premise.
No doubt,if all citizen homes could be opened by a passkey held only?
Meth and paranoia go together.
You know well proving a negative is near to impossible.
Anarchist tripe.
I thought I was on the Wrong House List, but apparently not. Would you please add me?
You've been added.
Thank you. Nice tagline, BTW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.