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.
Talk about being subject to abuse!
Not surprising.
The cops don;t work for us - they work for the Courts.
The legal system, the politicians and the police are in the same bed, more or less, waxing fat on taxpayer dollars.
The police should be replaced in part with a volunteer citizen’s militia - juat as we had 200 years ago.
That's just plain silly. How can you justify the battering ram budget if you use keys? ;)
Brutsche's son, James Brutsche, was not charged in the case, according to court records. He later died in an explosion on the property.
Hhmmmmmmm, where there's smoke, there's work accidents?
The son was killed by his meth lab a year later:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/182836_fire20.html
“”Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Man hurt in meth-lab fire at warehouse dies
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF
KENT — A man who was burned in a methamphetamine lab fire here July 13 has died while being treated in Harborview Medical Center’s burn unit, Kent Fire and Life Safety reported yesterday.
The man was identified by the King County Medical Examiner’s Office as James Brutsche, 46.
The fire broke out at a vacant warehouse near state Route 167 in downtown Kent about 9 p.m. July 13. Brutsche was the only man injured.
Fire investigators later determined an illegal meth lab was being run from the warehouse and was responsible for the fire.””
I pray for the day the American people insist police and other authorities must act like reasonable human beings ,and stop these un-needed violent invasions,arbitrary property confiscations,and all other violations of the freedoms our founders sought to enshrine.
REmember there was no such thing as drug crimes before the early 1900s Food and Drug laws.Amazing the Republic lasted as long as it did,almost a hundred years.
The US bombs another country and then pays for repairs. In our own country the government destroys property and says tough luck.
Wrecking properties could become (if not already) a useful tool for harassment and at no cost to the government.
I think that Maryland mayor would disagree with this judge.
Whether they were at the right location or not, this is precedent for when they are at the WRONG location, like your house or mine, on some sleazy informants tip. This precedent means that a raid can be initiated on the word of some corrupt, career-building creep, or politically motivated, and there’s no recompense to the property owner.
Just another reason to celebrate when bad things happen to cops.
Anyone can be a cop.
Anyone.
Doing work of the king, as it were. The king can’t be wrong. /s
Being a criminal can be expensive... boo hoo for all the lowlifes.
LIKE WHAT??? Man, what a dolt.
How many dogs did they shoot?
With an attitude such as this being pushed through the LEO crowd, I think all officers in Washington State should take an indepth course on IED recognition because their appreciation levels in their respective communities are sure to take a beating.
I’d imagine that it will be left up to the Police Chief to decide whether an apology will be proper even though you won’t get any money from the city. Remember Chief, a few kind words can go a long way to making life safer for your men.
"There may be a legitimate basis for breaking down doors the owner stands ready and willing to unlock [though I certainly can't think of any at the moment]..."
or
"There may be a legitimate basis for breaking down doors the owner stands ready and willing to unlock [though I certainly can't think of any at the moment], but even if such basis rarely exists, the police in this case didn't have one."
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.