Posted on 10/31/2019 12:31:05 PM PDT by OddLane
An armed shoplifting suspect in Colorado barricaded himself in a stranger's suburban Denver home in June 2015. In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
After an hours-long siege, the home was left with shredded walls and blown-out windows. In some parts of the interior, the wood framing was exposed amid a mountain of debris.
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
It seems to be a taking for public use to me.
I believe compensation per Amendment V is owed to the homeowner.
Paying the homeowner is also the right thing to do.
They can’t let all the used military grade equipment they acquired go to waste.
This was in federal court. Immunity in federal court only applies to States, not municipalities. Eleventh Amendment.
the public was safe with him holed up in there .. without the military explosive and armoured vehicle assault, etc
I had not thought of that angle. Wow.
So this will seem a bit tin-foil-hat-esque, but lets say you have a political enemy or maybe someone pissed off the police chief’s mom, or perhaps you’re taking bribes from the local strip-mall developer who needs a residential street out of the way, or whatever else... you just pay one of your informants to go life a pair of gloves at the local boutique and then run into the target house. Then roll out the tanks. The hardest part is letting your informant slip out of the house un-detected, or give him cover if he runs out after the blaze spreads. heh.
Of course. It was the fleeing suspect who provoked the police that brought on the wreckage. This is why one buys home insurabce—an unexpected incident causing damage.
The closest parallel I can think of is the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire. There, the civil authorities dynamited a number of buildings and homes to create a fire break and stop the fires from spreading further. Subsequently the building owners sued for compensation, and the courts held that no compensation was due because the dynamiting was done pursuant to police powers to protect the health and safety of the city residents.
Bingo! Takings Clause should protect this property owner.
If the shoplifter was shooting at just the police (from inside the house he snuck into), and he has no history of violent crimes against others, then I'm way against this ruling.
But if the shoplifter was shooting at many other people from inside the house, and/or he has a long history of committing violent crime against others, then I want to cut the police some slack for doing whatever it took to stop him as soon as they could.
So let's reserve our judgement until we know everything in the story, which NPR is notorious for leaving out on purpose.
Take a look at the opinion; the link is in the article. To try to get around the police power problem, the case was pleaded as a takings case under both the federal and Colorado constitutions . The opinion pretty cogently explains why this is not a takings case. Harsh result, but correctly decided.
In late news...the city is fining the owner of a home for maintaining an eyesore and failing to maintain proper upkeep on his home.... /sarc
“There was no “public safety” issue when a person is completely held within a non-public home. Surround it and wait him out. Stupid cops! “
indeed. as long as there are no hostages, just cut off all public utilities and wait ... the perp will eventually come out ...A good friend of mine who just retired as deputy sheriff Sargent told me that was his and the department’s standard operating procedure ... it always works and no fuss, no muss too ...
Wow. This could go a long way to ensure police have utterly no responsibility to ‘limit’ or ‘minimize’ their damage to private property when going after the bad guy.
Police can be as destructive as they like. Think some bad guy is in that house? Well then, drive your truck right into the house, and knock the walls down. Not my problem Mr. Freeper. See ya.
See a bad guy run inside your house? Let the police blow the darn thing down. Nothing to stop or to limit them.
What’s that? You don’t have insurance to cover such things? Well, too bad, so sad Mr. Freeper. Sucker.
Nice country you got there Mr. Freeper.
I was a huge fan, at the time, of Congressman Bob Barr and Helen Chenoweth.
The fact that the Republicans had control of Congress for the better part of 2 decades and couldn't even rollback agencies like the ATF and BLM illustrates how useless their majority was.
With all the high tech equipment out there enabling them to see everything going on inside homes, seems they could have strategically taken him out.
I was thinking of the same circumstance. Explosives were used across the city. Most famously, all of one side of Van Ness Avenue. Used a little two much, and the blasts set more fires. An early example of effective municipal government in San Francisco, but there was properly no compensation because it came under the police power
Folks, this is old law in the US. It goes back to the San Francisco fire of 1906, when public authorities dynamited houses to stop the fire. The courts found they were immune from liability as they were acting for public health, safety and welfare.
Haha... and your tag-line.
Maybe the thief initiated the firefight, dontcha think? Doubt that the police did, merely on the basis of apprehending a shoplifter if he/she does not exhibit life-threatening armed resistance. Maybe the danger to the community was real and present, requiring immediate response.
False premise.
The police are under no Constitutional obligation to protect you; SCOTUS has routinely upheld this. Your defensive rights and defensive obligations are yours, and yours alone.
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.