Posted on 11/20/2006 3:27:42 PM PST by SmithL
Even as Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures erode in this post-9/11 era, sometimes the courts still protect the rights of ordinary citizens.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals last Monday unanimously upheld a $138,000 jury verdict in federal court against three Tacoma, Wash., police officers for reckless or malicious violation of a homeowner's rights.
They broke down the back door of Susan Frunz's home with no warrant and no announcement of their presence, pointed a gun within inches of her forehead, slammed her and two guests to the floor, handcuffed them and held Frunz for an hour. Only later did they recognize that she wasn't burgling her own home. They never made an arrest or filed an incident report.
Frunz was awarded the home in her divorce case and recently had moved in. Her ex-husband had moved to California. The incident began when a neighbor called 911 to report Susan Frunz on the premises.
In an incredible move, the city defended its warrantless, no-knock storming of the home, appealing the jury's award of $27,000 in compensatory damages and $111,000 in punitive damages. The appeals court had no patience with this, ordering the city and its attorneys to show cause why they should not be sanctioned double costs and attorneys fees for filing a frivolous appeal.
"A prompt payment of the verdict, accompanied by a letter of apology from the city fathers and mothers, might have been a more appropriate response to the jury's collective wisdom," wrote Judge Alex Kozinski for the three-judge panel.
The Fourth Amendment is based on the centuries-old Castle Doctrine from English common law, which states that individuals have the right to defend their home from intruders and should be provided the opportunity to comply with the law before...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT OVER
Sell the house and move. Heaven help her if she needs to call the police for anything in the future.
Worst Court in the USA: "the Ninth Circus"
Blind Squirrel.
Acorn.
Stopped Clock.
Correct time.
Thanks again, Ron, we miss you.
Over!
What I can't figure out is just how they went from "Hey, the guy's ex-wife is in the house" to no-knock entry.
They couldn't have tried knocking on the front door first?
"In an incredible move, the city defended its warrantless, no-knock storming of the home, appealing the jury's award of $27,000 in compensatory damages and $111,000 in punitive damages>"
$138,000 an hour. Not bad work if you can get it.
Little slow on the learning curve, eh.
They must have been having a bad day. Still drowsy after not getting enough sleep or something.
What exactly did the TAXPAYERS do wrong to deserve the fine?
Why not fine fine the VOTERS? Why the TAXPAYERS? If you live in one town and own property in a 2nd town, you are a TAXPAYER with no vote.
Damned well better pay.
I remember a police operator call that was on all the TV stations in the news, then in a special on 'bad cops' , circa 1997-1999. Seems she told a person calling in to report a burglary to get off the line and not to waste her time, among other things. Eventually another TV special set the record straight and gave the whole story : The "concerned neighbor" was a lawyer, calling to report her client's estranged husband entering his own home and removing personal belongings, which was his right . And the lawyer had a history of doing this, which is why the operator knew who the caller was and what she was up to. Seems the lawyer not only was trying to get the husband arrested (why I don't know, unless she thought he'd do something crazy that would get him into REAL trouble, since he'd be able to prove his right to go into his own house) AND she apparently recorded the call and released it with misleading editing, with the idea of embarrassing the local police! (Which I thought was illegal.) A real piece of work. I'd guess there was similar collusion between the exhusband and the neighbor-was the ex wife known to own a gun and keep it handy? Was exhubby hoping she'd pull her piece and get mowed down by the police? I wonder...
Email me to join the "Whoops. Sorry, citizen. We thought you were someone else" PING list. This is an ever-increasingly high volume ping list.
I would bet on another no-knock in 6 months or a year with drugs and/or guns being "found." She needs to leave the state.
Somehow the neighbor had more to do with the bad outcome than is being reported. What else did the neighbor tell the police? Why did the neighbor seem to think it necessary to call the police?
We are in agreement.
The Ninth Circuit, like all federal appeals courts, sits in panels of three judges, so it is the luck of the draw who will sit on any given case. The 9th Circuit has more liberal judges than others, so it produces more leftist decisions than other circuits, but it also has some excellent conservative judges. Kosinski is one of them.
Way to low IMHO.
Even a broken clock is right twice every day...
But in this case - I am shocked that they came down on the correct (and consitutional side) of this issue. Quite uncharacteristic of them.
City employees on city time, doing the City's work/bidding.
Although at least whoever was in charge of the "raid" should be held in some way accountable. The idiot probably got a promotion.
Calling those vermin "police" is an insult to true policemen everywhere. They are jack-booted thugs who should be thrown out on their asses.
Having worked in this profession for over 30 years (federal and local) I can tell you with the limited information from the article, these guys should not be working for the police department. Unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as someone screaming for help, or the like, I cannot for the life of me how any officer would sanction breaking down the door to investigate a burglary without a little leg work first. These guys give the rest of the great officers on the job a real bad name.
It's the concept of agency. The cops are the agents of the city. The city is responsible for their conduct while they are on city time.
Donut dust can cause many strange things.
Only in Some states, not all.
Naaaaw, something this big is likely to have huge repercussions for the commanding officer. His next automatic promotion will be delayed for a good 6 to 8 months.
Cops, like school teachers and reporters, come from the bottom 1/3 of the college food chain.
"Explain why the TAXPAYERS have to pay and not the COPS and then we can talk about getting it right."
I think police are required to have bonds. Why couldn't they go after the bond?
Your comments seem to indicate that you think this is out of line as far as the settlement goes. I would have sued for 10 times this amount. These cops are acting as "agents" of the city and, as such, the city is not only liable, but also negligent for hiring such nimrod cowboys. The fact that the cops never filed any kind of incident report indicates that they knew it was a bullshit roust intended to harrass and intimidate. Some will, no doubt, flame away with all this "cops are heroes and blah, blah". Feel free to do so - and I'll put you on the mailing list for the next time I hear about one of those bridges for sale or those great land deals in Florida.
Then why not sue the VOTERS who elected an incompetent government, that hired the cops?
There is a difference between the Voters and the Taxpayers, even though there is an overlap between the two groups. Why are the Taxpayers being punished and not the Voters?
Cops go around writing tickets to everyone else except each other and their spouses,(99% of the time), if they can dish out the fines, why cant they take it? I say fine the Cops, or the Voters that elected the morons who hired them, but it makes to sense to fine the taxpayers, who did no wrong.
I did NOT know that! I honestly thought it was illegal to record unwitting people (especially cops).
Will the taxpayers be forced to pay that judgement (ironically under threat of home invasion if they fail to pay their taxes) or will the officers be held
personally responsible?
Cop worship syndrome. Everybody gets used to “the cop does no wrong” (unfortunately sometimes it happens to the cops themselves) to the point of something exactly like this happens. The P.D.’s should get the pizz sued out of them on every instance like the one described.
About time they got one right.
Should have been $1.5 million in punitive damages.
Unless the government officials were elected unanimously, how do you tax only the people who voted for them? Going after people who voted against the incompetant officials wouldn't seem fair; indeed, if such people are treated worse than those who didn't vote at all, such treatment would discourage people from voting when the candidate they dislike could end up winning and then doing something expensively bad.
Those are my favorite;had to be careful not to smear chocolate icing on the reports,though!
Kind of miss the road patrols but there wasn't room in my little department for someone who believes relationship to the board members shouldn't determine innocence.
There are a LOT of Gladys Kravitzes out there.
Some people might regard such a law as anti-cop, but I would think it would improve officer safety by discouraging reckless raids by SWAT wannabees. A real SWAT team should have no problem making clear who they are; the wannabees shouldn't be conducting SWAT-style raids.
Quick story: A friend of mine owns a landscaping company in Long Island, NY. One of his workers backed a truck into some person's car one day, never telling my friend, the owner. At the time, my friend lived next to the where he parked the trucks. Late at night, he woke up when he heard people poking around in the dark, near his equipment. He called his dog, grabbed his bat, turned on the floodlights and walked out the door. He was facing cops, guns drawn, investigating possible property damage.
Turns out his employee did back the truck into a ladies car, and insurance covered the claim.
I would say that a bill should be sent to every registered voter, and collectively all the voters should pay. If voters cant be held responsible for their collective decisions, how can the people they elect be held responsible. Voters are the foundation of our society and they should be responsible for their choices. A strong healthy society can not be built upon a weak, unresponsible foundation. Suing the taxpayers for decisions made by others is just wrong. Say I decide to run up my credit card, should my neighbor be made to pay it off? Hell no, he was not responsible for my decision to run up my card. Like wise if the voters elect a government that hires bad cops, the voters should pay, not a different group that was not part of the decision making process. Like I said if you own property in a town you do not live in, you are not a voter in the town, just a taxpayer. Fine the decision makers, not the innocent bystanders.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Kosinski's name has been bandied about as a top-notch candidate for a Supreme Court pick.
I have agreed with every ruling of his that I have read .... a strict Constitutionalist.
In a wonderful irony, he allowed a suit to proceed in California that seemed twisted and perverted .... some people were suing to be allowed to renegotiate a commercial mortgage that had a no-renegotiation clause. But he pointed out that his Federal review was to be in compliance with State Precedence ... and the California State Supremes had allowed a similarly frivolous suit to proceed under weird analysis. Kosinski basically stated that in California, the earlier ruling meant that a contract really was subject to reinterpretation ... if it could be compelled in the past, it would need to be allowed ... until the CA State Legislature and Courts took action to correct their prior judicial activism/wackyism. It was a wonderful ruling!!
Mike
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.