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.
American law enforcement is based on the ridiculous premise that a “Jihad on drugs” targeting about a quarter of peaceful, loyal citizens is a good idea.
When we have more people in prison than Red China it is time for self-reflection.
When we have FEDERAL law enforcement ignoring state law and arresting old and sick people for smoking grass it is time for action.
When we have police kicking in doors, shoving innocent people to the ground and shooting their dogs it is time for revolution.
When the taxpayers finally revolt and scream no more Big Banking bailouts, now they can have the cops simply bang doors down looking for ‘taxes’.
The cop haters don't care.
Does that mean the owner of the property mistakenly raided have to pay for the cops he thought were gangbangers conducting a home invasion robbery and whom he subsequently blew away? Fair is fair.
They don’t have to kick down doors. Bankers can seize all assets up to $ 250,000 in Bankruptcy. Even though its not their money. The FDIC will eat the losses until it folds, too. Thanks to Paulson. Sad, but true. Wait and see . . .
And the ends justify the means crowd thinks it makes a difference
Obviously it was just a coincidence.
/sarcasm
Somebody should lose their job.
Sometimes justice is served without first connecting all the dots. (Not that I'm advocating it, but sometimes the situation jams my give-a-d@mn.)
Just remember... some doors batter back... hard.
Mike
One either believes in the rule of law or they don’t
Fairness has little to do with it, I think.
Not really.
I seem to recall that some police force got caught rejecting applicants because they were too smart.
Seems they like 'em dumb and obedient. I can't imagine why.
Yep. Meth dealers and their supporters are attacking the decisions made by our courts of law.
the only way i can conceive of a homeowner being allowed to live after such an engagment is if he has total coverage CCTV, with a live feed going directly to the local network affiliate, AND being an “democratic activist.”
Good enough place to bump this thread for later.
LOL what about that scenario? Bunch of overzealous cops think they've got a bad guy cold and bust in his door only to discover an operator serious about his skills and unforgiving of incompetence.
Do you know the first time SFOD-D (Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta aka Delta Force or aka THE CAG or Combat Applications Group) was ever used in a real operation was the ill fated mission to rescue the Iranian hostages during the Presidential watch of Jimmy Carter. That mission ended in a fiery failure at the release point known as Desert One. Upon their call up for duty one of the Delta operators went back to his apartment just briefly to pickup something personal maybe a watch. Inside his own apartment he came across a burglary in progress. He never hesitated. Drew a Browning Hi Power 9mm from a shoulder holster and drilled the bad guy right through the heart just once and left the body where it fell. Went directly to the unit and reported the shooting to the commander of Delta: Colonel Chargin' Charlie Beckwith.
The Colonel took care of housekeeping and announced the mishap to the rest of the team, much to the dismay of the operator involved. The Colonel put that to rest by explaining that now the team knew they'd been prepped to a razor's edge and were 100% ready for the mission. Too bad nobody was prepped for choppers not being rigged against the intake of sand in a desert environment. That brought the birds down on maintenance and after the mission was scrubbed, there was a collision on the ground between a C130 and a Helo. Eight good guys dead. I don't know if the guy who killed the burglar was one of those. I got all of this from Beckwith's book. Beckwith died a few years ago from cancer.
All I'm saying is that given the number of combat tested veterans that are now streaming into our society from the WOT, it's not an impossibility that such an incident might actually happen. Imagine had that been the case when the jack booted thugs went about grabbing guns after Katrina? All in all, I think it's a good thing that cops remember this when they go charging about in the night waving warrants that are flawed or nonexistent.
With that said, I don't like the precedent set by the decision. The police damaged the property and nothing was found, so I think that they should have had to reimburse the owner for reasonable damages. The $5000 in damages that the owner wanted sounds extremely high, so I'd need to see it justified.
He was a bad guy.
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.Under these facts, reasonable minds could not differ.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=79252-6&s=WA&d=37471
And if destroying property isn't taking it from the lawful owner,what is it?
The courts can be,and often are,just plain wrong!Sometimes those decisions are reversed years later.
Anyone who supports the rule of law which is fair and impartial should be dismayed by this ruling.Because it means when the cops in their macho ninja masks smash your door,kill your pets, and maybe injure or kill you or your loved ones by mistake,"they were just doing their job" and needn't worry about paying .
People who cannot be called to account for their actions are liable to become arrogant and careless.I'd rather the police took time to do the job right.
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.