Ironically said officers are paid their salaries by tax payer dollars but if they screw up, they claim they can't be sued. That's absolute shit honestly.
I doubt the officers are personally held liable in this case. It's the government. Police have to do what they are called to do. They can be punished for screwing up, you can prosecute them (occasionally) for actual criminal activity, but you can't have people suing officers personally for being on a detail.
This case wasn't about irresponsible officers, they did what was necessary in the situation. it's about unethical politicians refusing to take responsibility for damage caused. If the cops have to damage property in the course of their duties so be it but cities need to pay restitution.
@@Cynthorrpg1 in return those police officer takes the who cares attitude they’re not paying for any damage they caused. It’s like sometime your friend borrowed your stuff and don’t take care of it, but and you have some friend that borrowed your stuff that they would take good care of it like their own. So you’ll have those police officer having attitude like well I’m not gonna get sued because of the qualify immunity that they have. I only follow orders.
@@evilsanta8585because the government is the sovereign. It’s a concept that goes back to time immemorial. The British King, who is the British sovereign, is above the law and cannot be held to answer for anything by anyone.
The worst part is that they're not even wasting *their* money fighting the cases rather than paying her. They are wasting the *taxpayers'* money to fight the case against a TAXPAYER.
@@barkobama7385that doesn't solve the problem because it was malpractice. They were operating within what is allowed, I do think it's a good idea but it wouldn't be malpractice.
Look up the concept of tax choice, I think it’ll be of interest to you. It would allow us to create accountability for policy by restricting government control over our own money.
I had a faimly member that the state took her property for just this to build a highway, fast forward twenty plus year's and the highway was completed and all was going smoothly, it turns out the state wound up adjusting the original plan just enough to just miss her place. She opens the news paper one morning and her place is going up for sale by the county she lived in. This property is now right beside a highway exit ramp, and worth a couple of million dollars, as it turned out her attorney had input a clause that if the property winds up not being used in the process it was taken for she had the first option and the right to purchase it back for the exact amount she was given for compensation. This ruffeled some feathers. She wound up buying it back for something like thirty thousand dollars. Be sure your legal rep, installs a similar clause in any situation like this you end up in.
Only 30k for an entire house in this economy smh, if the state department of transportation was forced to pay out every homes actual appraised value urban freeway expansions would likely be hauled overnight.
Well in this specific case the responsible party is the individual who did the kidnapping. However they are dead and likely without a sizeable estate so the PD gets blamed.
well: the Institute for Justice surely brainstorms up douzends of ideas, waiting for the perfect case to try the argument on. Otherwhise, it would be an ineffective use of money. Now, most arguments will fail, but only by trying different arguments in different cases they have a chance of cracking a case. Note that the city could always stop the process at any time by paying out the woman, while the case is hanging in revision. Or the city can accept a lower court awarding money. The idea being that "in principle" avoiding a sound argument to be heard by the US supreme court is in the interest of police agencies avoiding payouts.
@@sarowie I wonder how many cases that haven't been brought to court where the property owner just had to take it and now they find out that there's a way. There may be a wave of cases coming now for damages that haven't been to court.
In a large city near me the city used eminent domain to take a property. The land owner was in the middle of constructing high end condos. As it sat it was worth 1.5 million. They gave him 350k. He sued and won. The city appealed and lost. He increased the suit to 2.25. They appealed and lost. Increased to 2.75. They appealed and lost. Ultimately the city was forced to pay 7.5 million because they wouldn’t stop appealing.
the city did not lose. THAT is the problem. because the CITY never has to pay. the tax payers have to pay. so the CITY itself has nothing to lose in appealing. its only upside for them. the downside is always absorbed by the tax payers.
It would be helpful to know what the basis was for them wanting the property. These things can get stupid, my dad lost the only build-able portion of a lot he purchased because the city needed that section to widen a bridge. They condemned the land and only paid for the portion they wanted, which happened to be the only portion of the land with any value. People don't like paying taxes, but taxes is what would allow for this stuff to be handled in a more fair way. I'm not suggesting that we allow landowners to hold the local government hostage, but with appropriate tax dollars, they could be handed out something resembling the value of whatever was taken as intended by the framers of the constitutions. I personally think that if the police or whoever is legitimately doing their job, that should absolve them personally of being on the hook for the consequences, not the governmental agency that ordered it. Sure, ti does kind of suck to have to pay taxes to clean up these messes, but as this case points out, you don't necessarily have the ability to foresee all the possible eventualities. I doubt she would have hired the man if she thought any of this would have happened.
@@loosemoose9799 They're not stupid, they were probably more concerned with what happens down the road in terms of their ability to seize property. Depending upon the use, the upside of winning could well have been worth it. We know what the result was, but if the result was something that would have paid out $10m had they won, it's suddenly a much more difficult decision to make.
About 25 years ago while I was living in Philadelphia, the police executed a search warrant on the wrong house on my block. They figured it out right after entry, so the only damage was the door, but it was in the dead of winter and the only resident was an elderly woman. The next day, 4 police officers showed up and replaced her door at their expense.
It's nice hearing of an Old School idea like that. Too bad these governments and companies of today with the personnel of today don't understand these concepts...
Which is exactly what should happen, I don’t understand the argument when the cities don’t want to pay for damage they caused just because it’s “in the execution of their duties”
I honestly thought Qualified immunity meant you couldn't sue the personal individuals. The agencies should still be 100% responsible. That's ridiculously insane.
This case was about sovereign immunity (or governmental immunity), which is a little bit different. (Or perhaps it was technically municipal immunity? However, I don’t know all the details of the case, and I’m not a lawyer by any means) “Sovereign immunity protects the State. Municipal immunity protects our towns and cities. Official immunity protects the state’s highest executive officers, including judges and legislators. Qualified immunity protects, as the courts have put it, ‘… lower-level officers, employees and agents.’”
Its weird that you CANT sue the State govt due to sovereign immunity, but you CAN sue the federal govt. Something about the first 13 states created the feds, but why is this applicable to the remaining 37 is beyond me, because the later states were created by Congress.
I'm of the opinion that *SOMEBODY* should always be "sue-able". If it was an employee/government agent who was NOT following the rules, that employee should be liable. If it was an employee/government agent who WAS following the rules, that employer/government should be liable. I get it that sometimes the police might need to break a door down in order to do their job. But that doesn't mean that it becomes my job to pay for it. Breaking a door down to carry out a lawful order might be necessary, and so is paying for the door.
Our city was trying to stick it to a mechanic that had a single person auto repair shop that had been grandfathered in on a zoning change where the city later changed their mind and said he had to be out in a month. City wouldn't negotiate, reconsider, or even adjust the timeline before the IoJ came along. As soon as the city heard the IoJ was backing him they caved. Long story short the fellow with the garage can stay there as long as he wants and the mayor got on TV saying how the city had reconsidered because they wanted to do the right thing and it had nothing to do with the IoJ. Right mayor Pinocchio, whatever you say.
🎉This needs to go to the Supreme Court so badly😮. Oh my gosh, if this becomes federal law and all states are required to be bound to the responsibility of the actions of their police officers, there will be new codes of conduct for police officers to act by.😊
This has nothing to do with police conduct. Her property was effectively taken without compensation. The need to capture criminals won't change if SCOTUS upholds this case. The lack of arrest and prosecution in this country has already had dire consequences. But if police alter policy to avoid capturing criminals on private property, crime will get far, far worse. In fact, it will motivate criminals to deliberately seek shelter on private property. The police will still need to do their jobs, but cities should be responsible for damage done to private property by their employees.
You have more hope than I do, I think they’d use it as an excuse to raise taxes “just incase” and then reject every third claim because of some bs loophole.
@@YakubTheFather I never said anything about hope. They may well raise taxes to cover increased liability. But if police are prohibited from apprehending criminals on private property, the increase in crime would cost you a whole lot more. It's the lesser of two evils, what's known in economics as alternative cost.
I love when someone beats the government by using the rules that the government has written to ensure they win court battles against their own citizens. Thank you Institute For Justice and Mr Lehto.
@@Diddz See they can't because if they disband that law then they can't force people from their homes for city improvement projects and if they just try to write out the compensation portion of the law then there will be riots. Eminent Domain has finally gotten to the point where it is being used against the government and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. About the only thing they can do is get rid of Qualified/Sovereign Immunity and tell cops that from now on they have to be careful because they are no longer protected and that any damages an individual officer commits will come out of their own paycheck and that they will now be held legally and civilly liable for every action they take.
@@Diddz the rule is the US constitution. No doubt the city would rewrite it if they could, But they don't have the political capital to pull off a constitutional amendment like that.
This was a brilliant move on the part of her lawyers. It only makes sense that if the property of an individual is destroyed for the "benefit" of the public that the public should pay for those damages.
With the city being sued, they should investigate whether the officers behaved with proper decorum, and if not then take it out of their salaries for the rest of their lives. I know, the U.S. doesn't have any proper decorum laws, but civilized countries do.
@@Traildude Must be nice. I'll bet someone can't jump into your house and take it hostage, and you can't do anything about it for months and months, either. Some of the laws in America are so far beyond stupid that stupid isn't even in sight anymore. I guess you could wait outside the building where federal (The Capital) or state or local legislation occurs, but who would want to? Since here it speaks of a sovereign, I guess in this case you might have to travel to the UK to see the original location. I wonder if it originally happened in Parliament, or some castle somewhere? :-/
If law enforcement (city, state or federal) breaks it for the purpose of the public good, then law enforcement should be liable to fix it. That's absolutely the right thing to do. Bravo.
The public does not pay, that is just another BIG LIE they dupe us about. Federal money pays for the militarization of our police forces, pays for extra police or national guard forces etc to oppress and brutalize us, so the state can ask for federal money to fix homes damaged by police and for much much more. We have FIAT government money, all of us have seen the liars in power issue insane amounts for things that do NOT seem sensible, and that is because they issue it to entities where it can be EMBEZZLED by the many corrupt sociopaths who have run things for a very long time. Government money is NOT "our taxes", no matter how many times the corrupt liars pretend that is where government money comes from. It is CRUCIAL for us to know the EMBEZZLING SCAM the US criminals have done here and in all countries they take over. The overview/exposé below is just 6 paragraphs, and shows us what is behind the curtain of lies they dupe us with. Information is power, and knowing what the scammers hide from us will mean we can do good OFFENSE and be effective in fighting the corrupt liars, not just keep reacting as the sociopaths continue to escalate their tyranny and oppression, and take everything from us. Here is what the US criminals have done all over the world, since WW2: 1. Take over a country by coup, assassination, lies about government being corrupt or by threat or invasion so they can... 2. Implement their EMBEZZLING scam of "privatization", taking over government services & systems and national assets so the corrupt liars can handle fiat government money & BILL THE GOVERNMENT ANY AMOUNT for running such things; they provide themselves with massive exec salaries and insanely high profits, becoming oligarchs and billionaires. 3. Lie to the public ENDLESSLY to keep us duped. 4. Praise leaders who submit to US corruption & demonize leaders who RESIST or reverse it - like Putin, who reversed the US plundering done under US puppet Yeltsin, like Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, like Gaddafi wanting things nationalized and government money going to THE PEOPLE, like Morales in Bolivia, like Assad who said NO to a US pipeline through Syria, and so on. We also need to know that the demonization of both Russia and China is part of the multipronged US sabotage of the BRICS coalition since 2006. The greedy sociopathic money ADDICTS hate that those two countries are doing fair deals with other countries and helping them escape US control, corruption, privatization and loansharking. Also, vax co's & digital ID systems to control & subjugate us are "privatized" (as are quarantine camps). The scheme was to get TRILLIONS from many govts FOREVER while arranging to squash us so we could never rise up to stop their corruption, tyranny and inhumanity. They tried many pandemics previously to enrich themselves with government money; this was the most coordinated one - and used the most coercion. More specifics re "privatization" embezzling: Yes, in general a government can issue ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY for anything that is physically possible; the corrupt know this and have used that knowledge to scam the public and embezzle government money. They take over government services, conning the public about "saving money" and being "more efficient", but those are lies. The costs actually become higher because the corrupt liars overbill the govt for everything, billing ANY AMOUNT, providing massive exec salaries and insanely high profits, as already mentioned. And they give us REDUCED services, because their sociopathic greed and money addiction means they take more for themselves and do not supply what they are supposed to supply for us. Basically, the US has built a global corruption cartel, taking over countries (and their media) to EMBEZZLE from their governments. The UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were coopted and corrupted in the 70s-80s; the massive embezzling that ensued by taking over the many dozens of government services, support systems, assets and resources they had is what gave rise to the billionaire class in the 80s! We need a successful INTERVENTION on the lunatic money addicts in power who lie, destroy and KILL for more "money fixes". They are totally UNFIT TO GOVERN and should face charges of dereliction of duty, violating the Constitution, embezzling federal money, crimes against humanity, violating the Nuremberg code, war crimes and more.
You're absolutely right, Steve. SWAT operators are getting VERY heavy handed. As the saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
@@toriless Not just in the US that now seems to be the attitude of the Police worldwide with officers thinking that they are above the law and theren are no consequences for their actions as the badge covers them.
@@coffeepeachesplans not really you still got a pay for it. If you do an accident you’re still liable. If the police are breaking down the wrong house door. They should be definitely paying for that and probably should be buying you a nicer door for the trouble.
Maybe I'm just one of those dirty constitutionalists, but how gov should handle these things seems obvious. Gov damages innocent person's property, gov pays to fix it, then, the gov can take the crimina(s) to court to reimburse "enforcement costs" as it were. Might have issues but something like that seems like the common sense, ethical thing to do in a country where citizens are supposed to have rights.
Curious where the concept of qualified immunity came from in the US Constitution, then how it has become such a twisted and corrupt term and system that the original meaning is completely lost. Qualified immunity needs to be defined in law with heavy limitations, I acknowledge that it needs to be there for some things but right now they use it as a way to literally get away with murder
or, in this case, estate of the criminal(s), as the criminal have expired. But yeah, this is the model I would prefer. I suspect that the government tend to not go this route as many, possibly most, criminals are insolvent.
"The fly on the wall..." YES!! Why not ask the Instutite for Justice to do a spot with you and talk about this case. Sounds like it could be a great exposure for them, as well. A win-win. Thanks for the quality content. Keep up the great work!
Steve we used this in Louisiana and it worked with the state judge who ruled that they took possession of our property when they took possession of the house when a criminal claimed into the window of the garage. . He locked himself up in the garage. The police destroyed the garage and they took possession of the house before they got him out of the garage. They kicked in the front door and broke out windows. My neighbors were outside telling them that they had the keys and they could control our dogs. They were going to shoot my dogs but they stopped when they were told that my wife is a lawyer so they better stop and think about what they are doing. Well they did and they got the neighbors to come in and get my dogs. My neighbor was able to get the dogs and let one in the garage and the guy gave up. He didn’t like my dog.
It’s interesting how when things go before a jury and not a judge we get results like this. I have a feeling if a judge had been the sole decider it wouldn’t have gone this way
@@jeffreyredfern2260 are you sure? The video explained the judge allowed it to be decided by a jury trial. The usual operation is where the judge decides there is no case worthy of a jury trial.
I just joined AAQI (American's Against Qualified Immunity) last night. They are an affiliate of The Institute for Justice. I did so after watching a case that has been ongoing for 9 years. That case is on it's way to the Supreme Court for the second time. Imagine the attorney fees for going to supreme court 2x and being dragged out 9 years. These organizations are really deserving of people's support.
Police officers should be required to get their own liability insurance, fresh out of the academy. If they screw up, their insurance goes up. If they can't get insurance, they can't be a police officer.
It's not a conflict of interest. It's no different from doctors. The hospital has insurance, but so does the individual doctor. If they can't afford or qualify for insurance, it's due to their own negligence.
@@user-fe8gx3ie5v Why would it be a conflict of interest? Dog groomers have insurance, anyone who serves the public has insurance, why not the police officers who hide behind the badge (Mommy's skirt), and abuse their power. The public shouldn't be responsible for their attitudes. If they can't do the job well, it's time to go (and not to another department).
it wasnt really an IJ win as this defense has be tried many times before. its the JURY's win as they finally had the backbone to stand up and say "pay up".
It's actually a fairly simple argument to prove that government is using imminent domain, at least for the duration of the incident. The simple question would be "during the incident, would any of the law enforcement officers have allowed the home owner entry into the home, or even onto the property at all?". If the answer is no, then the government has seized control of the property and anything done to it is their fault.
Inverse Condemnation applies to actual takings, effective takings, and simple damages which the government fails to justly compensate pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amendments.
That case you referenced about the swat team destroying the house, I was there that night and the next day boarding the place up (I worked for a company that had a contract with the Denver police/surrounding counties to secure buildings for different reasons). It was way worse than pictures showed. We had to wear respirators and goggles because they used so much tear gas every time you touched something or took a step, a bunch of the particles got kicked up. The front room that no longer had a wall up front was a little boys room. The back was destroyed too. It was just, unbelievably surreal trying to get that place closed up. That job will stick with me forever.
@@NormalizeBeingNormal yeah this isn't about hating cops. It's about being fair. Sure it's their job but they don't need to destroy the entire building.
Some of these federal laws really need to be removed. There is no reason, why a federal branch, should not pay for damages they cause. Some of the worst loss of homes cases that I know of over the years that still disgust me are Centralia and Lake Peigneur. It's disgusting. They refuse to pay 100k for losing an innocent person's home, yet not think twice in giving billions to a country that hates us, and then they use that money for weapons to kill our soldiers over seas that shouldn't be there in the first place!
Don't forget, "federal" means privately owned... look up the Dunn and Bradstreet for your county, city, state... all corporations. God bless! This is a deep matrix over the peoplel.
@@telumears So much is hidden from us or obscured and Hollywood the government and processes that make it work or rather we think makes it work but if boating truly mattered I wonder if the last election would have gone the way it did. It's a shame the taxpayers cannot be paid back with their own money and like you said we will give it away to countries that hate us or four things that we have no control over. It's not right to treat people like that and not make them whole after damaging them in such a way.
What's ridiculous is that this lady offered them her garage door opener and they opted to just blow it up instead. I'm sure that sealed the deal for the jury. Absolutely no regard for accountability.
@@cnsgains5506 Yep, they don’t give af what they do because they know they won’t be held liable. And what makes me sick is how the government said they wouldn’t pay for the damage and her insurance wouldn’t either. We pay taxes and premiums to the 11:49 government and these insurance companies for years and they both just dismiss you when you need them. This lady did nothing wrong and had all her stuff in order to make sure she was covered if something happens. And when that thing happened everyone was like “tough luck” pay for it yourself. It makes my blood boil.
They refused to even talk with me about my case.... I'll never give them a dime, and will forever remind people of my animals the state illegally seized and is refusing to return (even though I've explained to them with their own documents exactly why their seizure of my animals was illegal). Seems like the IJ helps just about anybody, but me. :-|
@@michaelshrader5139 They also support the spending of taxpayer dollars on religious schools. There are arguments for this stance, but it is not one I agree with, so I have not donated to them. YMMV
@@machintelligence--So because Biden is Not Trump, you voted for a Potato. High Crime & Inflation, Open Borders, human trafficking & worsening drug crisis is better than Mean Tweets.
@@michaelshrader5139 Reach out to other channels (auditors, cop watchers, lawyers) and hopefully someone sees a case that has merit and agrees to help or possibly contact the IoJ themselves for you. Remember all these channels probably get asked for help constantly so it may take some time, but going through a lawsuit involving the government will probably be a long process as well. Good luck, know the feeling.
I'm amazed at how evil these cities can be, allowing their police force to trash an innocent person's home, and then claim, "that's their problem, not ours". Thank you SL for bringing this atrocity to our attention, even providing a link to the Institute for Justice so that we can financially help their causes, which I did.
This is one of the origins of law, ''the Magna Carta'' 1215 ''"No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, stripped of his rights or possessions, outlawed, exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"
Honestly , this law sets a bad precedent for police .When shit hits the fan you dont want police leadership thinking about property cost when lives are on the line . Police budgets are going to bloat to compensate for all the additional costs or police departs are goin to be way more stingy about actually sending the swat if it means a substantial financial L .
@@alfredoperez9017 It would be interesting if you would feel the same way if a fugitive ran into your house, forced you out at gun point, then had a shoot out with police resulting in $100,000 in damages to your property. Although I understand your argument, I don't believe the solution is for the innocent to have to pay. I'm thinking that cities would need to buy some sort of insurance for such situations. And maybe there other ways to handle such situations. If the cops cut off water and electricity to the house, and took other non-damaging measures, maybe that would do the trick. It's worth someone doing some research so that a guy like you isn't left with a six-figure bill.
Cool! Eminent Domain! The police "took" your property and owe you full value. If they choose not want it later and return it, they need to return it as they received OR compensate the original owner enough to restore it to its previous condition.
The fact that the city or the department won’t take care of this after they do it, it’s disgusting and immoral. They act like it’s some big burden on them actually do the right thing.
Exactly, it’s not like they are trying to bring criminal charges for the destruction of her house, she just wants the damages paid for. It’s so stupid how little the government cares about us when we vote them in and pay their salaries. Imagine you treated your boss like crap everyday, that’s what government does to us.
The problem is the cops are operating out of fear and then do dumb things. If they would take a step back and think instead of just reacting, things would be different.
@@ajkendro3413 Not quite. The problem is that the cops have zero incentive to minimize the damage, since they know that they will not be held accountable for damage in any way. On the other hand, if they can decrease their chance of getting hurt by even one tenth of one percent by damaging the property, then they will happily damage the property.
yeah. i feel like the police handled the confrontation correctly. the fault falls on government, lawmakers, elected officials, ect. if the government damages property, no matter why, they should pay to repair it.
She hit the nail on the head. Far too many people are willing to spend more money just to avoid helping people or trying to correct what they did and undo the harm.
They make their lawyer friends rich. Remember politicians are often also lawyers. It is great when politicians can spend tax payer money on their lawyer friends.
To your point, I think there was an article here in GA recently about how a country spent 1.2Mil because it did not want to pay 10K per year, at most, for a trans employee's transition. An actuarial study of this showed that at most this would've increased the county's health insurance cost by 0.1%. In account terms that's meaningless.
@@crissd8283 It's even better when the victim gets the justice as in this case. Sounds like you don't think we should sue those politicians? What you said was 💯 % correct, but I encourage citizens to weigh it out...... Every now and then it goes as it should!! Even when it doesn't, make damn sure they receive the bad publicity. That may cost them more down the road 🎉 ❤
@@michaelkovalsky4907 Check out the blind guy Aurora police beat the hell out of for touching one of them with his feeling cane. Or check out the not blind guy the Aurora police beat the hell out of because of mistaken identity of a robbery suspect, while saying "you messed with the biggest gang in denver buddy boy." Both cases they absolutely refused to admit any wrong doing, and the robbery guy they kept trying to accuse of robbery despite no evidence and an alibi. Both cases costing the city WAY more than any settlement would be.
The police enforcement agencies (and other agencies) have long dropped the pretense of 'preserving life and property'. Instead, they go after their target at any cost.
Property always comes before life be it a stolen car or burglarised home, or if its only a belt as Steve mentioned. That stolen belt meant destroying someones home. For what? A fine for shoplifting. Insanity. Uncorroberated Police testimony often only an opinion on say turn signal distances or such nonsense is a major problem in the US. One persons word against anothers doesnt stand up in court anywhere else in modern western society. As long as money is made from Policing there will be no end to unlimited budgets from public taxes paying for Jails, militarised Police Depts, and attorneys who cover the ass of this financial gold mine. Ill never understand the need to pay cash bail for non violent crimes. Lock up those accused of violence and release the rest on bail conditions stating failure to appear or further charges while bailed mean jail. You would instantly slash 100,000s of untried innocent inmate numbers saving billions every year and remove a large part of the profit motive of local Pds and Sheriff dept who run local jails for innocent people awaiting trial.
20 years or so ago I was on jury duty and one of the cases involved eminent domain. a small used car lot was "in the path" of a city street expansion. during the voir dire, the judge asked about 100 potential jurors for a show of hands if they would set aside their personal beliefs and follow the law. about 75% were immediately excluded from serving. he barely had enough to get 15 jurors. the city won the case, the guy lost his business, and a year or two later the street was expanded but the same lot the businessman owned now had a bank on it.
Just donated $50 to Institute for Justice because of you publicizing them. Thank you for letting people know about them and the good work they do. I feel passionately about sovereign immunity and civil asset forfeiture, and now I have a way to put my money where my mouth is!
They're horrible, wouldn't even talk to me just sent me a "We decline to help you" e-mail message on the issue of my animals that were illegally seized by the state after I complained too much about the repeated flooding a wealthy developer was causing my home in Plum Grove Texas! It's like, I don't even matter.
@@michaelshrader5139 sorry for your situation but you have to think about the (likely) thousands of cases they’re pitched each year. They can’t accept every case and probably have to screen requests at a _very_ rapid rate. They might even have an auto-reply set up for when they aren’t accepting new cases.
I usually do $100 when I bother but I am old and have less expenses. The wife does simultaneously compliment my shopping skills while stating we are well enough we do not need to fight the little things. For me, $100 is a lot, for store is a layaway deposit, for a lawyers it a starting point for 8 minutes ... I wish I could give every charity a grand but I can not.
I know an apartment owner in Houghton MI. He typically rents to collage students. There have been many times local authorities would break apartment doors while pursuing these students for goods they're consuming during their leisure time. And of course these local departments refuse to pay for damage to the entry doors. So the apartment owner reinforced the door jambs with steel plates so they couldn't be so easily "kicked in". A the story goes, law enforcement then had to get him to open the apartments for their entry needs.
Perhaps the reason its been overlooked in the past is because eminent domain is used as a way for the government to legally force you to sell your property to them. In this case, its kind of coming at it backwards saying "You already used this citizen's property for the public good, now you need to compensate her for what you took". Glad she did get compensated and I hope this does pave the way for more successful compensation cases in the future.
❤😊 .... though I like to listen to your posts, this is one I truly love! It's about time government personnel and entities are held accountable for their actions, just like [they] do to the public. It is only right. Thank you for the insight and humor.
Disgusting that both the governments at all levels and the insurance companies can sleep at night knowing darn well they are weaselling out of doing the right thing. Thankfully she prevailed.
If insurance companies had to cover government acts, they'd go bankrupt or stop offering coverage at all. The government has enough impunity and moral hazard as it is.
Police officers should be required to get their own liability insurance, fresh out of the academy. If they screw up, their insurance goes up. If they can't get insurance, they can't be a police officer.
I saw a video where cops busted into the wrong house. They broke the door frame, door, lock destroyed totally. The home owner asked the cops who is going to pay to fix this. The 5 cops just looked at the busted door and frame off the hinges and shattered and just walked away without saying a word. Disgusting!!
I live in McKinney. I wish I could have been on that jury. That makes me proud that my local residents are starting to see the light and realize that QI and SI are total BS and need to be abolished. I was called for jury summons on a criminal case a few weeks ago. I was dismissed after I answered that I watch a lot of cop watch videos and have seen way too many police violate law and civil rights, therefore I would have skepticism of police testimony unless I could review the individual officer’s personnel file and public complaints filed.
Right, you’ve got to play the game :) Not volunteering this kind of information (you’re not lying, just don’t voluntarily give it up) is how you get on the jury and can help make a difference. The state wouldn’t want you - a cop skeptic - on the jury, but the defendant would!
There is a famous case in Henderson, NV where the family's dog was killed, the owner jailed because he refused to allow police to stage. They lost everything. The police not only invaded their home, took food, destroyed items in the house & arrested the owner because he protested. I don't think the IfJ was available or just getting started. Either way, it left a bad taste in many mouths. Great case!! Hopefully this stands all the way to SCOTUS. Thanks Steve!
I saw a police body cam from California where a guy was barricaded in a home alone... Cops set up a "snipers nest" in a stairwell in a neighboring home... I always wondered if they had to consent.... Seems that they would but with police these days who knows.
Unfortunately no, this is not the first cased use the eminent domain argument, and the cases are a mixed bag, some wins some losses, some have gone to federal court and lost, it's a patchwork and until the supreme court sees it, it will stay that way, heck I wouldn't be surprised if there's reversals in some district's
The "qualified" in "qualified immunity" supposedly means that public officials are covered _only_ if any damages occur whilst they are doing their jobs in the normal manner. Is destroying a house a typical action for police? I'd like to see a jury decide that point.
I would say that if there is a 'reasonable' decision that a SWAT team is needed, then the SWAT team will use the methods they consider are reasonable and normal 'in the circumstances', which is the circumstances they have been trained for and the reason they exist. So I would say the police would likely win that argument.
"Qualified immunity" is different to "sovereign immunity". If qualified immunity applies then you can't sue the individual public official for something they did in the normal pursuit of their job. (IE: You should be suing the government, not the individual.) If sovereign immunity applies then you can't sue the government. (Usually this is because the harm came about as a direct result of a necessary function of government - foreign policy is a classic example. Eg: "I had a great business deal set up with a company in Russia which you ruined with your sanctions" would fail due to sovereign immunity.) In this case, the argument that the police officers' actions caused damage so the homeowner should be paid fails due to both qualified immunity (can't sue the individual police officers) and sovereign immunity (can't sue the government). I personally think the latter is a bit of a stretch... but I guess it's well-established law, so there's no way of arguing with it other than to push for specific federal legislation.
@@herseem If SWAT is needed, by definition, No circumstance is normal or routine. Gladly most don't think alike otherwise govt accountability would be nonexistent.
I've been following this case since they first destroyed her home. Yes, there was an intruder who barricaded himself in there and the police had to get him, BUT, that does not divest them of the responsibility for the damages done. This is especially important as insurance will not cover damages caused by "police actions." So grateful for IJ!
I think there's a mixup somewhere along the line in the system. The individual policemen might have to have some kind of immunity to getting sued for damage that happens when they trample someone's house since an individual person couldn't afford to do what he needs to. But the police department or the city (or their insurance) should still pay for it. Now for some reason, the city is claiming IT is immune to payment too, which is indeed quite silly.
@@TimoRutanen With respect, that is common practice. Cities/governmental bodies never take ownership of damages caused in pursuing miscreants. That falls on the property owner. Now, of course, the property owner is able to sue the perp, but guess how far that gets them, especially if they suicide or are killed in the process. This lady had the house sold, but it hadn't closed yet. Of course, that sale fell through, causing a double loss on her part. Read up on the case. You will be amazed at the damages done that the city tried to skate on. She is not the only one to have it happen to, either.
Steve, these towns and other government entities are using taxpayer monies to defend these cases. There are fiduciary laws that control the proper use of these taxpayer monies. When they spend more defending these cases than it would have cost to pay for the damages, I wonder if this would then fall under the improper use of said funds
How did this ever not violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. It's both disturbing and disgusting that local or state officials and police would take issue with compensating individuals for damage caused capturing dangerous individuals.
Why would the police and DA have an issue with a legal defense that allows them to drop a nuke on your home and kill every member of your family and neighborhood and there is no accountability or responsibility for any deaths or damages? Of course courts would uphold this kind of BS immunity, gives them incentive to not look at possible side effect or consequences
Someone has to raise the issue and frame it in a way that does not infringe on previously established case law such as sovereign immunity. If there was a hint of "the police did this [in the course of their lawful duty] and the owner should be compensated for damage the police inflicted on the property", the case would have been summarily judged. Since the suit said (in effect) "the police took the property [in the course of their lawful duty so for a public purpose 'public safety'] and the owner should receive just compensation for the change in value of the property while it was in their custody" and a jury agreed.
Eminent Domain! I love it! Good for this woman! There are so many people whose homes have been destroyed only to realize, ‘Oops, wrong house!’ If these gov’t officials had their home destroyed in like manner would they be so cavalier!
As my late mother-in-law used to say, "The principle of the matter can be very expensive." It violates common sense and any vestige of justice that property owners in cases like this can't get compensated. Finally some good news!
Well, the entire idea you have rights is delusional, you have temporary permissions until the government decides to take them away, eminent domain means you have no right to property and the fraudulent US documents declare, and the same for so-called freedom as the Japanese citizens discovered in WW2 or life, as innocents murders in TX have experienced. You can not even poop on toilet if a LEO decides to take it away under civil asset forfeiture. DOJ what an ironic name! Should be Department of Takings !!
Hoping this precedent takes off. We'll see legislation, policy, and institutional practices change when the parties involved are finally taken to task (instead of hiding behind a shield like qualified immunity)
I remember that video and how much damage was done. It is my opinion, based on what I have seen in video and witnessed in person, that law enforcement cause unnecessary damage, because they know that they have the immunity and therefore are not as prudent or careful when people's property is concerned. I'm glad to see a win for this lady, and I hope she recovers all her loses, including the time and effort to pursue this case.
Extra rounds expended, multiple unneeded tear gas and flashbangs used, and all the doors and windows smashed.... because "well, our department doesn't always get the training that we need, so we turned it into a big, destructive training exercise..."
because they dont care. cops are almost untouchable. what kind of people do you get when they realize being a cop gives that much power? cops do whatever they want to.
Not all insurance policies are the same. They can have different coverages and exclusions. You'd have to read the policy in question to know if the damage in this case should have been covered.
Its the people who vote for low taxes but still want stuff. They then get a government that does not want to spend money on things that will not get them votes.
Yes the insurance company is not great, but it will be in the contract specifically because of issues like this. Primarily here it's the governmental side that's in the wrong here.
This case is hardly about insurance companies. An uninsured person should also be able to be made whole when someone destroys their home. The government shouldn’t be able to do this and pawn it off on the people and their insurance companies. They government should have to compensate people fairly, and they can get their own insurance to cover it.
@@michaelsommers2356 The interesting things are those not covered. You get a list of coverages and exclusions, but what is not covered is only implied, not specifically written out. How would it be? If you take insurance for your home that includes natural disaster, burglary and so on, but cops show up... then the cops are not a natural disaster nor burglars - they are cops.
I had an argument with some buddies years back when one of these "cops destroyed the house" stories hit. This was basically one of the idle arguments I had made. Under the 5th they should sue for FORCED eminent domain. Usually its city forcing homeowner, but theirs no theoretical reason shouldn't work in reverse. The city already took it when they destroyed it, the state usually has predetermined calculations they use, and, since it was already taken, either they have to buy the entire thing at pre-taking rates, or make it whole again and return it to owners since that would be cheaper than the entire property for "fiscal responsibility". It's a bit different, but I'm glad to see it works.
@Gavno Nadoroge I haven't had my house destroyed by cops, and I am not a lawyer. I have 0 standing to help random people I've never met with an at the time completely unproven legal theory based on taking the law literally
@@ThrawnFett123 it doesn't matter what your excuses were, the point is you didn't do anything about it, and yet in your original post you made it sound like it was a good thing. if you have a natural talent to find unproven legal theories, why don't you do something about it, and actually use it, instead of making excuses?
@Gavno Nadoroge give me three hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. Right now. I have an idea, discussed with those same buddies, to make a mechanical trigger that can store trigger pulls from a single person, and be released with a safety all at once. ATF rules state safeties are encouraged and can be used to stop a trigger action. A machine gun is one trigger pull resulting in more than one bullet. There's a gap there, that a clockwork mechanism since electronic has been ruled against, gives a legally sound theory they cannot touch by statutes. Second point besides the money, you're gonna have to pull the trigger, and release the safety yourself. Don't worry, as soon as you transfer the funds, I can get the ball rolling. All you have to do is pay, and in less than 9 months you WILL be in front of a circuit judge
@@ThrawnFett123 i can't give you that amount of money. however i can see how machine gun enthusiasts, or even a gun company might be interested in contributing to that idea. so you can do some things to make your idea happen. start a gofundme campaign, and ask your buddies to publicize it. also write to gun publications and ask their members towards contributing to your idea.
It's a stretch, but I love the creativity...and hope it sticks. It does have a certain logic, that enforcing the criminal law is a public purpose/use. Although it certainly strains the historical understanding of public use. But the law has developed. We've got regulatory taking, etc., and public use does not have to be full and complete but can be temporary. The sad thing is that each state doesn't spread this small burden collectively through state reparations. (It's also wrong that it isn't covered by regular insurance...when it would be covered if criminals had done the damage). This issue makes me think about the 1906 SF Earthquake when firemen dynamited houses for fire breaks.
Y'know it's amazing how much money, time, and equipment the police are prepared to throw around to nail offenders for minor crimes but then suddenly when they've committed what amount to crimes of their own in the process they suddenly act like they're penniless. The real game is revealed: it's all about some people feeling powerful rather than actual justice. In any event this is a perfect legal argument and defense and I hope it succeeds and is carried through at the highest levels. Though with the corruption evident in the highest levels of our government for an extended time especially in the Supreme Court I doubt it.
That has zero to do with this case and this video, though. Unless you consider kidnapping a 15 year old girl to be a minor crime, which is different than a crime against a minor.
@@Max_Griswald yeah thats my concern here, i'm generally in favor of this case law, but it does have potential to dissuade police from intervening in similar cases, which could allow actually major criminals to slip away and repeat offend. I feel there needs to be some balance on this
I believe this same legal theory can be applied to cases involving Civil Asset Forfeiture. They are finding, suspecting, and seizing the money for public good - then the owner must be compensated with different "clean/legal" money - which ostensibly, only the entity making the seizure really has "clean money".
I'm not saying that civil asset forfeiture is a sensible argument, but I'm saying that since they are insisting that the particular pieces of fungible currency are involved in a crime, and it has value, and they are seizing it, that they have to compensate fairly the citizen who is not being charged with any crime. It is simply a matter of using the basis of their argument back against them. The Federal reserve does not in fact own all currency that is issued out into the world. It is a guarantor of the fungible value.
This episode popped up on my TH-cam page this morning. Love seeing other Michiganders using their expertise to help others like this. Are your microphones originals? I was in the radio biz for 50 years and used many like those in various settings. I’m a ham radio operator (W8PHN) and have a “Lollipop” mic, like the one on your shelf, I use when firing up my 70’s classic Kenwood TS-520. Keep up the good work. By the way, grew up in Flint/Davison back when it was a great place to live. Brother and sister still in Davison and Fenton. Not too far from Atlas. Dave M. Rockford, MI
Let's hope this case gets referene down the road. Polar opposite experience about 10 years ago in eastern Washington state: Police chased an armed robbery suspect who jumped my in-laws' fence, police crashed into it, kicked through a gate, ripped off a back-yard shed door to capture the baddie. The next morning, without even a phone call, a representative from the police dept showed up to make sure everyone was ok, gave a case number and said to get it all repaired and send them the bill. Easy peasey.
Clearly , the hired help know their proper place in that town and conduct themselves accordingly . Unfortunately , this is a very rare situation and not typical of most governments anywhere .
Most heart warming thing I've heard in a long time. Boy it's nice seeing real justice happening for a change. Definitely going to be looking to send a little something over to IJ.
Be better if they took these settlements directly from the police pension funds. Might make these assholes think twice before they decide to play super soldier to catch a shoplifter.
@@LilTikiBoy I don't know that that is legally possible, but I like the way you think. ...never hurts to have a little skin in the game. Fundamentally, the problem with society is we have a proliferation of systems that do not have aligned incentives structures.
@@LilTikiBoy It was a hostage situation but a shoplifter, is that what Lehto told you, it was shoplifting? The contractor, hired by the homeowner, took a fifteen year old hostage and barricaded himself in the house with the hostage. Do not take my word for it, look this up for yourself. Then make an informed decision.
"Hello judge. were you the one presiding over this case?" ... "You were? Then, as the owner of this establishment, I am trespassing you. Please leave and do not return.
Amazing? Not really. The alternative would be a complete disaster. Imagine if there was no sovereign immunity and the government had to pay for all the damages done to a property by police doing their jobs. So if you owned a property and it's getting a bit banged up and the kitchen could do with an upgrade.. So why not give the police an anonymous tip that something very illegal is going on and have the cops storm the place and get the city paying for the renovations. People would abuse the f*** out of that law
I think the part of cases like this that makes me the most angry is that the decision to not pay ultimately comes down to one person or a small group such as a mayor, a city council and city lawyers. So these are people actually living in the same city giving the middle finger to a fellow resident of the city. So while sovereign immunity may have been based on immunity for a king ruling by divine right none of these city officials, employees of the voters, rule by divine right.
I wonder if the city does not want it's insurance rates to skyrocket or get dropped. I'm thinking like how insurance providers in Florida were dropping clients. Can insurance even do that with police or a city?
Just a thought: Say the daughter or the owner of the house went to the SWAT team in the middle of the raid and said "I want to go into my house now" and they said no, would that stand to strengthen the chances of winning under this theory? Them saying no would show certain that the house was taken and they would not grant her access.
Nah, in that case they are protecting the public by refusing access to a dangerous building or area. After all, there was potentially a suspect in the area or building.
@@gmailisaretardbut her home was private property she is entitled to enjoy on her own, not a public place. If they would restrict her from entering her own property, then that may strengthen the case that her home was taken from her, if only temporarily.
Best news I’ve heard in a long time!! Maybe all those people that the police went to the wrong house will get their money back too ! Finally loophole for the people!!!!
As a Brit, I find it bizarre than ancient English common law on monarchical sovereignty is used to give US government agencies immunity from liability when I've never heard of sovereign immunity being used for the same purpose in the UK
Its kind of infuriating that there would even be any question about whether the property owner should be compensated, even moreso that its just assumed by the state that they should not be. Regardless of any justification they could provide, it is objectively unethical. It makes no difference to the property owner _why_ their property was damaged or whether it was damaged by a criminal or the state.
One of the most interesting cases I've ever heard about. It's strange that the government doesn't already compensate owners of property they destroy in the line of duty. Eminent domain was a great argument and I believe it could win in higher courts as well. Hopefully the people who tries will be smart enough to get the best lawyers to handle the case. Treating property damaged in the line of duty as an eminent domain case should be the law of the land.
This would be a huge and just ruling if it makes it to the Supreme Court and they uphold the ruling. I am so over the complete lack of accountability and the unjustness of immunity in a country where the government is supposed to exist at the behest of the people.
This same thing happened to a guy I knew. Someone ran into his house who was a criminal. Well long story short they destroyed the family’s trailer and refused to fix any of it so the family became homeless. I was always annoyed that the government can just cause you to become homeless and not help you at all. (I’m from ky )
Did that person have a minor against her will? Not saying this homeowner did not deserve damages she absolutely did. I just don't get how many people are willing to bypass responsibility of the suspect and go straight to making taxpayers foot the bill..
@@skillethead15 Agreed. Tax dollars start paying off every knucklehead who causes an emergency response then we should also get to decide the punishment.
@@I.am_Groot The person they were pursuing didn't destroy the home, broke a window maybe, but wasnt breaking down doors or gassing the house. If you run from the police in a vehicle, the cops pursue without due regard, hit & kill someone, it's not the person who ran thats responsible for that death.
if you think 3 or multiple solutions to a problem, you'll almost always find a way that works. That attorney deserves all the credit he gets. bravo honestly
The argument against "imminent domain" that I had heard was that the property was returned, so no compensation is required. I'm eager to see this go all the way to the Supreme Court if it must. Cops that destroy private property with reckless abandon need to be held responsible. If that means they need to think twice before driving a tank through someone's front door, then all the better.
There is a lot of legal precedent about what amounts to a "taking" of a property. I would say that surrounding it with armed personnel and destroying it might constitute a taking. The higher courts will have to decide. Qualified immunity is intended to protect individual people like cops and government officials when they act in good faith. In an eminent domain case, the defendant would not be a police officer or government official, but the government itself. If they "take" the house, they have to pay the plaintiff for the house, but then they own it. So they can fix it up and sell it to recoup some of their expenses, and no individual cop or official will have to pay. In a takings case, you force the government to compensate the owner of the house at fair market value. I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding.
This makes so much sense. Obviously the police have the right to destroy property in the pursuit of justice but compensation should be part of the process. There should be a department in the police force that accepts complaints, reviews police reports, goes and assesses the damage and then negotiates a compensation payment. This should be all without having to involve lawyers and the legal system.
Uh no, not "in the pursuit of justice" they do not have the right to just blatantly destroy private property! To protect life, they have that right... and in this case, the hostage was already safe and the police knew that the suspect was the only person still in the house and rather than sending in a cheap unmanned drone to get eyes on the suspect they instead proceeded to wreck and destroy the house! That wasn't right, and it wasn't lawful by my take!
@@michaelshrader5139 I also thought of that. The hostage was safe so they could have taken their time and hopefully discover that the man was dead before destroying the house.
Tremendous use of imminent domain. I hope this case gets appealed and progresses to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court rules in her favor. That would amount to a complete reconsideration of how government entities respond to these situations, and hopefully would result in just settlements out of court for the majority of these incidents.
Court Decisions: District Court (2022): The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Baker, ruling that the City’s conduct indeed constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment and the Texas Constitution2. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (2023): However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case3. The court’s reasoning was based on a novel interpretation of the Takings Clause, suggesting a “necessity” exception to its protections1. En Banc Rehearing: Despite expressing sympathy for Baker, the court denied rehearing en banc, leaving the issue unresolved1.
As a German I find this concept of sovereign/governmental immunity very strange. You normally can't go after the officers in person (unless malice or gross neglect is involved), but the state is certainly responsible for damages with a few restrictions. The primary exception is if you are the reason for the operation in the first place, e.g. since you caused a fire.
I do think Germany has no 'fruit of the poison tree' doctrine, so illegally obtained evidence might still be used in court. The US is very strict with that. So the germany system as weaknesses as well. And let's be fair any criminal case against a police officer in Germany is closed due to 'lack of public insterest' or some other ridiculous reason. Procecutors and the police work hand in hand and are best buddies, so there commonly is no independent investigation against a police office (this can depent on the state though).
That's genius. It sounds like sound reasoning to me. Something has to be done to stop the government from doing this. It happens way too often and if you are innocent you should not be punished by simply owning property.
In the 70's the city of Phoenix wanted to buy all the properties around 7th st and Jefferson in order to build a baseball stadium. My grandfather refused to sell his mechanic shop so the city sent in an inspector to look for a reason to condemn the building and of course they found a reason......bad wiring. The city then (without doing anything to fix the bad wiring) let the Sheriff's department use the building as a maintenance shot for a number of years then leased it to two other companies before tearing it down. When the city took the building form my grandfather they gave him pennies on the dollar. Eminent domain is a scam the cities use in most cases just to get what they want and almost never pay what the property is worth cause they know most people don't have the resources to fight them.
There was a city (I think it was in Texas) that used eminent domain to take a bunch of property to build a stadium. They ended up taking more than they needed and once everything was built they sold off property around the edges for 10x what they gave the owners in the eminent domain settlement. Those owners then took them to court claiming that the city selling the property established the value and they were undercompensated. The city claimed that the stadium improved the property value so they were justified. The city lost and had to make some big payouts. I think the city was correct that the stadium did increase property values but I expect the jury was outraged that the city took more than they needed and then profited from it.
Something government seems incapable of understanding is that part of being a professional is being held accountable for your mistakes, even when they are "reasonable" and/or "made in good faith." All other private citizens are open criminal/civil liability for mistakes that are reasonable and good intentioned, barring certain circumstances in certain jurisdictions where Good Samaritan law applies.
Ironically said officers are paid their salaries by tax payer dollars but if they screw up, they claim they can't be sued. That's absolute shit honestly.
I doubt the officers are personally held liable in this case. It's the government. Police have to do what they are called to do. They can be punished for screwing up, you can prosecute them (occasionally) for actual criminal activity, but you can't have people suing officers personally for being on a detail.
As you see sovereign citizens do exist however it only applies to the government
This case wasn't about irresponsible officers, they did what was necessary in the situation. it's about unethical politicians refusing to take responsibility for damage caused. If the cops have to damage property in the course of their duties so be it but cities need to pay restitution.
@@Cynthorrpg1 in return those police officer takes the who cares attitude they’re not paying for any damage they caused.
It’s like sometime your friend borrowed your stuff and don’t take care of it, but and you have some friend that borrowed your stuff that they would take good care of it like their own.
So you’ll have those police officer having attitude like well I’m not gonna get sued because of the qualify immunity that they have. I only follow orders.
@@evilsanta8585because the government is the sovereign. It’s a concept that goes back to time immemorial. The British King, who is the British sovereign, is above the law and cannot be held to answer for anything by anyone.
The worst part is that they're not even wasting *their* money fighting the cases rather than paying her. They are wasting the *taxpayers'* money to fight the case against a TAXPAYER.
Lawsuits won against cops should come out of the police pension fund. I'd bet they'd rethink that corrupt blue line bullshit.
Exactly - it doesn't cost the prosecutor *anything* when they take a case to trial and lose. Failure has no consequences for them.
Make cops carry their own malpractice insurance like a doctor or lawyer or engineer, problem solved.
@@barkobama7385that doesn't solve the problem because it was malpractice. They were operating within what is allowed, I do think it's a good idea but it wouldn't be malpractice.
Look up the concept of tax choice, I think it’ll be of interest to you. It would allow us to create accountability for policy by restricting government control over our own money.
I had a faimly member that the state took her property for just this to build a highway, fast forward twenty plus year's and the highway was completed and all was going smoothly, it turns out the state wound up adjusting the original plan just enough to just miss her place. She opens the news paper one morning and her place is going up for sale by the county she lived in. This property is now right beside a highway exit ramp, and worth a couple of million dollars, as it turned out her attorney had input a clause that if the property winds up not being used in the process it was taken for she had the first option and the right to purchase it back for the exact amount she was given for compensation. This ruffeled some feathers. She wound up buying it back for something like thirty thousand dollars. Be sure your legal rep, installs a similar clause in any situation like this you end up in.
Brilliant
I am so happy to hear this story! Good for her and her attorneys!
Only 30k for an entire house in this economy smh, if the state department of transportation was forced to pay out every homes actual appraised value urban freeway expansions would likely be hauled overnight.
Oh that's just awesome!!
I love a good story! Fantastic!!🤑👍
I love it, a win for the citizens. Anything that encourages governmental accountability is always welcomed.
But it's not a win. Taxpayer money will be paid out. A win would be if the officials had to pay with their own money.
@@docsavage8640 that will happen when the majority of voters in this country demand it. Put up candidates who advocate for said position.
Well in this specific case the responsible party is the individual who did the kidnapping. However they are dead and likely without a sizeable estate so the PD gets blamed.
It is a win tho, taking money away from cops is always good, even if it is taxpayer money @@docsavage8640
Sorry, but the City appealed to the 5th Circuit and they REVERSED the lower court. Screwed again.
I think the key to these cases is getting them in front of a jury. Any jury member can easily put themselves in the shoes of the victims.
A key aspect in not having That happen is govt immunities.
Except bootlickers.
Sometimes, judges try to prevent people from having a jury trial in civil cases.
City, we demand a jury of our peers. Proceeds to fill the court with neighboring city Meyer's
Same for QI. QI should be a defence to put to the jury, like self defence. It should not be ruled on by a judge as its a matter of fact.
Kudos to the woman’s lawyer who didn’t just bring the same old loser case but used a good strategy to do something different.
well: the Institute for Justice surely brainstorms up douzends of ideas, waiting for the perfect case to try the argument on.
Otherwhise, it would be an ineffective use of money. Now, most arguments will fail, but only by trying different arguments in different cases they have a chance of cracking a case.
Note that the city could always stop the process at any time by paying out the woman, while the case is hanging in revision. Or the city can accept a lower court awarding money.
The idea being that "in principle" avoiding a sound argument to be heard by the US supreme court is in the interest of police agencies avoiding payouts.
@@sarowie I wonder how many cases that haven't been brought to court where the property owner just had to take it and now they find out that there's a way. There may be a wave of cases coming now for damages that haven't been to court.
@@sarowie in the end it's all just a show run by wealthy clowns.
@@carmichaelmoritz8662 technically it’s not so much wealthy clowns as it is Elitist ones.
@@carmichaelmoritz8662 is that a tent I see smoldering?
In a large city near me the city used eminent domain to take a property. The land owner was in the middle of constructing high end condos. As it sat it was worth 1.5 million. They gave him 350k. He sued and won. The city appealed and lost. He increased the suit to 2.25. They appealed and lost. Increased to 2.75. They appealed and lost. Ultimately the city was forced to pay 7.5 million because they wouldn’t stop appealing.
What you so aptly pointed out is that public office holders are stupid.
@@loosemoose9799 In the end, city officials are never held personally responsible. They are playing games with your and my money.
the city did not lose. THAT is the problem. because the CITY never has to pay. the tax payers have to pay. so the CITY itself has nothing to lose in appealing. its only upside for them. the downside is always absorbed by the tax payers.
It would be helpful to know what the basis was for them wanting the property. These things can get stupid, my dad lost the only build-able portion of a lot he purchased because the city needed that section to widen a bridge. They condemned the land and only paid for the portion they wanted, which happened to be the only portion of the land with any value.
People don't like paying taxes, but taxes is what would allow for this stuff to be handled in a more fair way. I'm not suggesting that we allow landowners to hold the local government hostage, but with appropriate tax dollars, they could be handed out something resembling the value of whatever was taken as intended by the framers of the constitutions.
I personally think that if the police or whoever is legitimately doing their job, that should absolve them personally of being on the hook for the consequences, not the governmental agency that ordered it. Sure, ti does kind of suck to have to pay taxes to clean up these messes, but as this case points out, you don't necessarily have the ability to foresee all the possible eventualities. I doubt she would have hired the man if she thought any of this would have happened.
@@loosemoose9799 They're not stupid, they were probably more concerned with what happens down the road in terms of their ability to seize property. Depending upon the use, the upside of winning could well have been worth it. We know what the result was, but if the result was something that would have paid out $10m had they won, it's suddenly a much more difficult decision to make.
Common sense prevails! This IS huge! Congratulations to the Institute of Justice-I’m putting you on my donation list.
About 25 years ago while I was living in Philadelphia, the police executed a search warrant on the wrong house on my block. They figured it out right after entry, so the only damage was the door, but it was in the dead of winter and the only resident was an elderly woman. The next day, 4 police officers showed up and replaced her door at their expense.
It's called taking responsibility. Those days appear to be over. It went the way of the white knight persona. Wiped out by the greed of a few.
It's nice hearing of an Old School idea like that. Too bad these governments and companies of today with the personnel of today don't understand these concepts...
Back when philly still had some brotherly love
That's the way it should be.
Which is exactly what should happen, I don’t understand the argument when the cities don’t want to pay for damage they caused just because it’s “in the execution of their duties”
I honestly thought Qualified immunity meant you couldn't sue the personal individuals. The agencies should still be 100% responsible. That's ridiculously insane.
This case was about sovereign immunity (or governmental immunity), which is a little bit different. (Or perhaps it was technically municipal immunity? However, I don’t know all the details of the case, and I’m not a lawyer by any means)
“Sovereign immunity protects the State. Municipal immunity protects our towns and cities. Official immunity protects the state’s highest executive officers, including judges and legislators. Qualified immunity protects, as the courts have put it, ‘… lower-level officers, employees and agents.’”
Basically, they’re all freaking immune under almost all circumstances. Really messed up stuff… 😤
America is a police state if the cops can destroy your house without consequences.
Its weird that you CANT sue the State govt due to sovereign immunity, but you CAN sue the federal govt.
Something about the first 13 states created the feds, but why is this applicable to the remaining 37 is beyond me, because the later states were created by Congress.
I'm of the opinion that *SOMEBODY* should always be "sue-able". If it was an employee/government agent who was NOT following the rules, that employee should be liable. If it was an employee/government agent who WAS following the rules, that employer/government should be liable.
I get it that sometimes the police might need to break a door down in order to do their job. But that doesn't mean that it becomes my job to pay for it. Breaking a door down to carry out a lawful order might be necessary, and so is paying for the door.
Our city was trying to stick it to a mechanic that had a single person auto repair shop that had been grandfathered in on a zoning change where the city later changed their mind and said he had to be out in a month. City wouldn't negotiate, reconsider, or even adjust the timeline before the IoJ came along. As soon as the city heard the IoJ was backing him they caved. Long story short the fellow with the garage can stay there as long as he wants and the mayor got on TV saying how the city had reconsidered because they wanted to do the right thing and it had nothing to do with the IoJ. Right mayor Pinocchio, whatever you say.
This wouldn't have been the case of City of Mesa vs Baileys Brakes would it?
They wanted to do the right thing... Okay, why not doing the bad thing in the first place? 🤔
"Our authority was challenged and we don't want to give the appearance that people can just challenge our authority."
LMAO, thank you for that last sentence it was priceless. Please excuse me as I need to change into dry pants now.😂
Maybe this is a different case but I feel like Steve covered something similar in the past.
🎉This needs to go to the Supreme Court so badly😮. Oh my gosh, if this becomes federal law and all states are required to be bound to the responsibility of the actions of their police officers, there will be new codes of conduct for police officers to act by.😊
Supreme Court is corrupt and on the take, they’ll take a bribe and side with the government. The right wing is sliding the country into fascism.
This has nothing to do with police conduct. Her property was effectively taken without compensation. The need to capture criminals won't change if SCOTUS upholds this case. The lack of arrest and prosecution in this country has already had dire consequences. But if police alter policy to avoid capturing criminals on private property, crime will get far, far worse. In fact, it will motivate criminals to deliberately seek shelter on private property. The police will still need to do their jobs, but cities should be responsible for damage done to private property by their employees.
You have more hope than I do, I think they’d use it as an excuse to raise taxes “just incase” and then reject every third claim because of some bs loophole.
@@YakubTheFather I never said anything about hope. They may well raise taxes to cover increased liability. But if police are prohibited from apprehending criminals on private property, the increase in crime would cost you a whole lot more. It's the lesser of two evils, what's known in economics as alternative cost.
I love when someone beats the government by using the rules that the government has written to ensure they win court battles against their own citizens. Thank you Institute For Justice and Mr Lehto.
makes one wonder, if the government will now try to remove that rule from the books so that it cant be used against them....
@@Diddz See they can't because if they disband that law then they can't force people from their homes for city improvement projects and if they just try to write out the compensation portion of the law then there will be riots. Eminent Domain has finally gotten to the point where it is being used against the government and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. About the only thing they can do is get rid of Qualified/Sovereign Immunity and tell cops that from now on they have to be careful because they are no longer protected and that any damages an individual officer commits will come out of their own paycheck and that they will now be held legally and civilly liable for every action they take.
@@Diddz they won't remove it they'll just refine it to further screw over the people who keep them in business.
@@Diddz the rule is the US constitution. No doubt the city would rewrite it if they could, But they don't have the political capital to pull off a constitutional amendment like that.
@@TheBooban Steve shared the story with explanation and analysis. To me that is something I am appreciative of.
This was a brilliant move on the part of her lawyers. It only makes sense that if the property of an individual is destroyed for the "benefit" of the public that the public should pay for those damages.
With the city being sued, they should investigate whether the officers behaved with proper decorum, and if not then take it out of their salaries for the rest of their lives.
I know, the U.S. doesn't have any proper decorum laws, but civilized countries do.
@@Traildude Must be nice. I'll bet someone can't jump into your house and take it hostage, and you can't do anything about it for months and months, either. Some of the laws in America are so far beyond stupid that stupid isn't even in sight anymore. I guess you could wait outside the building where federal (The Capital) or state or local legislation occurs, but who would want to? Since here it speaks of a sovereign, I guess in this case you might have to travel to the UK to see the original location. I wonder if it originally happened in Parliament, or some castle somewhere? :-/
If law enforcement (city, state or federal) breaks it for the purpose of the public good, then law enforcement should be liable to fix it. That's absolutely the right thing to do. Bravo.
The people already payed. This should penalize the agency that destroyed the property for basically burning money.
The public does not pay, that is just another BIG LIE they dupe us about. Federal money pays for the militarization of our police forces, pays for extra police or national guard forces etc to oppress and brutalize us, so the state can ask for federal money to fix homes damaged by police and for much much more. We have FIAT government money, all of us have seen the liars in power issue insane amounts for things that do NOT seem sensible, and that is because they issue it to entities where it can be EMBEZZLED by the many corrupt sociopaths who have run things for a very long time. Government money is NOT "our taxes", no matter how many times the corrupt liars pretend that is where government money comes from.
It is CRUCIAL for us to know the EMBEZZLING SCAM the US criminals have done here and in all countries they take over. The overview/exposé below is just 6 paragraphs, and shows us what is behind the curtain of lies they dupe us with. Information is power, and knowing what the scammers hide from us will mean we can do good OFFENSE and be effective in fighting the corrupt liars, not just keep reacting as the sociopaths continue to escalate their tyranny and oppression, and take everything from us.
Here is what the US criminals have done all over the world, since WW2:
1. Take over a country by coup, assassination, lies about government being corrupt or by threat or invasion so they can...
2. Implement their EMBEZZLING scam of "privatization", taking over government services & systems and national assets so the corrupt liars can handle fiat government money & BILL THE GOVERNMENT ANY AMOUNT for running such things; they provide themselves with massive exec salaries and insanely high profits, becoming oligarchs and billionaires.
3. Lie to the public ENDLESSLY to keep us duped.
4. Praise leaders who submit to US corruption & demonize leaders who RESIST or reverse it - like Putin, who reversed the US plundering done under US puppet Yeltsin, like Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, like Gaddafi wanting things nationalized and government money going to THE PEOPLE, like Morales in Bolivia, like Assad who said NO to a US pipeline through Syria, and so on.
We also need to know that the demonization of both Russia and China is part of the multipronged US sabotage of the BRICS coalition since 2006. The greedy sociopathic money ADDICTS hate that those two countries are doing fair deals with other countries and helping them escape US control, corruption, privatization and loansharking.
Also, vax co's & digital ID systems to control & subjugate us are "privatized" (as are quarantine camps). The scheme was to get TRILLIONS from many govts FOREVER while arranging to squash us so we could never rise up to stop their corruption, tyranny and inhumanity. They tried many pandemics previously to enrich themselves with government money; this was the most coordinated one - and used the most coercion.
More specifics re "privatization" embezzling: Yes, in general a government can issue ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY for anything that is physically possible; the corrupt know this and have used that knowledge to scam the public and embezzle government money. They take over government services, conning the public about "saving money" and being "more efficient", but those are lies. The costs actually become higher because the corrupt liars overbill the govt for everything, billing ANY AMOUNT, providing massive exec salaries and insanely high profits, as already mentioned. And they give us REDUCED services, because their sociopathic greed and money addiction means they take more for themselves and do not supply what they are supposed to supply for us.
Basically, the US has built a global corruption cartel, taking over countries (and their media) to EMBEZZLE from their governments. The UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were coopted and corrupted in the 70s-80s; the massive embezzling that ensued by taking over the many dozens of government services, support systems, assets and resources they had is what gave rise to the billionaire class in the 80s!
We need a successful INTERVENTION on the lunatic money addicts in power who lie, destroy and KILL for more "money fixes". They are totally UNFIT TO GOVERN and should face charges of dereliction of duty, violating the Constitution, embezzling federal money, crimes against humanity, violating the Nuremberg code, war crimes and more.
It is extremely satisfying to see eminent domain actually working for the 'little guy' for once.
Except it didn’t. They won on appeal for a stupid ass reason. Now it’s gotta go up to SCOTUSnext year if they even take the case
@@radfordra booooo 😒😮💨
I should have figured as much... Silly me having high hopes.
You're absolutely right, Steve. SWAT operators are getting VERY heavy handed. As the saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
... and the public is prey and you are the predator... Is cities like Spokane they are now told this, the public is your target.
@@toriless Not just in the US that now seems to be the attitude of the Police worldwide with officers thinking that they are above the law and theren are no consequences for their actions as the badge covers them.
This is a genius legal argument because the attorney is exactly right.
OR, when all you have is heavy tactical gear, everyone looks like a terrorist.
Maslow’s Law
Put succinctly: _you break it, you buy it._ This is great law and I sincerely hope SCOTUS affirms it.
Accidents are different
I actually think this was appealed and overturned..
@@FlyinRaptorJesus I couldn't find any docket to the effect of _City of McKinney_ v. _Baker._
@@coffeepeachesplans not really you still got a pay for it. If you do an accident you’re still liable. If the police are breaking down the wrong house door. They should be definitely paying for that and probably should be buying you a nicer door for the trouble.
Maybe I'm just one of those dirty constitutionalists, but how gov should handle these things seems obvious. Gov damages innocent person's property, gov pays to fix it, then, the gov can take the crimina(s) to court to reimburse "enforcement costs" as it were. Might have issues but something like that seems like the common sense, ethical thing to do in a country where citizens are supposed to have rights.
Curious where the concept of qualified immunity came from in the US Constitution, then how it has become such a twisted and corrupt term and system that the original meaning is completely lost. Qualified immunity needs to be defined in law with heavy limitations, I acknowledge that it needs to be there for some things but right now they use it as a way to literally get away with murder
"make me." - gov't
Stop making sense!
@@axhed "Don't threaten me with a good time" -me
or, in this case, estate of the criminal(s), as the criminal have expired.
But yeah, this is the model I would prefer. I suspect that the government tend to not go this route as many, possibly most, criminals are insolvent.
"The fly on the wall..." YES!!
Why not ask the Instutite for Justice to do a spot with you and talk about this case. Sounds like it could be a great exposure for them, as well. A win-win.
Thanks for the quality content. Keep up the great work!
Steve we used this in Louisiana and it worked with the state judge who ruled that they took possession of our property when they took possession of the house when a criminal claimed into the window of the garage. . He locked himself up in the garage. The police destroyed the garage and they took possession of the house before they got him out of the garage. They kicked in the front door and broke out windows. My neighbors were outside telling them that they had the keys and they could control our dogs. They were going to shoot my dogs but they stopped when they were told that my wife is a lawyer so they better stop and think about what they are doing. Well they did and they got the neighbors to come in and get my dogs. My neighbor was able to get the dogs and let one in the garage and the guy gave up. He didn’t like my dog.
Thank you for telling us.
Sounds more like your dog didn't like him 🙂
@@davetdowell His dog Loved him. Nice new toy!!
It’s interesting how when things go before a jury and not a judge we get results like this. I have a feeling if a judge had been the sole decider it wouldn’t have gone this way
Most likely
The judge actually decided that the city was liable. The jury decided damages.
@@jeffreyredfern2260 are you sure? The video explained the judge allowed it to be decided by a jury trial.
The usual operation is where the judge decides there is no case worthy of a jury trial.
@@jeffreyredfern2260 Oh, how nice. Thank you for correcting me and it’s nice to see a reasonable judge in a case like this.
@@prst99 Pretty sure, since I was Baker's lawyer in this case!
I just joined AAQI (American's Against Qualified Immunity) last night. They are an affiliate of The Institute for Justice. I did so after watching a case that has been ongoing for 9 years. That case is on it's way to the Supreme Court for the second time. Imagine the attorney fees for going to supreme court 2x and being dragged out 9 years. These organizations are really deserving of people's support.
Police officers should be required to get their own liability insurance, fresh out of the academy. If they screw up, their insurance goes up. If they can't get insurance, they can't be a police officer.
@@bl1429No, that would be a conflict of interest.
It's not a conflict of interest. It's no different from doctors. The hospital has insurance, but so does the individual doctor.
If they can't afford or qualify for insurance, it's due to their own negligence.
@@user-fe8gx3ie5v Why would it be a conflict of interest?
Dog groomers have insurance, anyone who serves the public has insurance, why not the police officers who hide behind the badge (Mommy's skirt), and abuse their power.
The public shouldn't be responsible for their attitudes.
If they can't do the job well, it's time to go (and not to another department).
You know a system is rotten to the core when justice is up to charity.
Making a precedent is what it is all about / or keeping it from happening!!! Thanks for your work !!
Always love it when IJ winds up with a win like this.
it wasnt really an IJ win as this defense has be tried many times before.
its the JURY's win as they finally had the backbone to stand up and say "pay up".
@@TheSighphiguy was this a jury trial?
It was a brilliant move for IJ to invoke Eminent Domain. They used the Devil's own tools against him.
@@KalijahAnderson i read an article on WFAA-TV out of Dallas that said it was.
@@TheSighphiguy cool. I always figured it was to the advantage to have a jury trial on these things.
It's actually a fairly simple argument to prove that government is using imminent domain, at least for the duration of the incident. The simple question would be "during the incident, would any of the law enforcement officers have allowed the home owner entry into the home, or even onto the property at all?". If the answer is no, then the government has seized control of the property and anything done to it is their fault.
Inverse Condemnation applies to actual takings, effective takings, and simple damages which the government fails to justly compensate pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amendments.
With the damage incurred, they should have condemned the property and built her a brand new house or let her pocket the cash.
That case you referenced about the swat team destroying the house, I was there that night and the next day boarding the place up (I worked for a company that had a contract with the Denver police/surrounding counties to secure buildings for different reasons). It was way worse than pictures showed. We had to wear respirators and goggles because they used so much tear gas every time you touched something or took a step, a bunch of the particles got kicked up. The front room that no longer had a wall up front was a little boys room. The back was destroyed too. It was just, unbelievably surreal trying to get that place closed up. That job will stick with me forever.
The police will destroy a house over a petty crime and then turn around and tell the public that "violence isn't the answer"...
but soon as you say that's wrong you get called unpatriotic or a cop hater ..lol
I'm sorry you had to work through those hazards. Thanks for sharing.
@@NormalizeBeingNormal yeah this isn't about hating cops. It's about being fair. Sure it's their job but they don't need to destroy the entire building.
@@WarPigstheHun They're not thinking about the ramifications of property destruction when trying to apprehend someone they believe is dangerous.
I love the ingenious way this lawyer did their job. BRILLIANT!!!
Some of these federal laws really need to be removed. There is no reason, why a federal branch, should not pay for damages they cause. Some of the worst loss of homes cases that I know of over the years that still disgust me are Centralia and Lake Peigneur. It's disgusting. They refuse to pay 100k for losing an innocent person's home, yet not think twice in giving billions to a country that hates us, and then they use that money for weapons to kill our soldiers over seas that shouldn't be there in the first place!
Don't forget, "federal" means privately owned... look up the Dunn and Bradstreet for your county, city, state... all corporations. God bless! This is a deep matrix over the peoplel.
And people still vote.....
@jsturm5hk8h Not me I finally realized it's all rigged and voting is a waste of time
Business as usual.
@@telumears So much is hidden from us or obscured and Hollywood the government and processes that make it work or rather we think makes it work but if boating truly mattered I wonder if the last election would have gone the way it did. It's a shame the taxpayers cannot be paid back with their own money and like you said we will give it away to countries that hate us or four things that we have no control over. It's not right to treat people like that and not make them whole after damaging them in such a way.
That's unreal. Those mofo's would have no problem taking every dime you had if you destroyed public property. They all must be held accountable!!!!
What's ridiculous is that this lady offered them her garage door opener and they opted to just blow it up instead. I'm sure that sealed the deal for the jury. Absolutely no regard for accountability.
@@cnsgains5506 cops behaving like cops, what a shock
@@cnsgains5506 Yep, they don’t give af what they do because they know they won’t be held liable. And what makes me sick is how the government said they wouldn’t pay for the damage and her insurance wouldn’t either. We pay taxes and premiums to the 11:49 government and these insurance companies for years and they both just dismiss you when you need them. This lady did nothing wrong and had all her stuff in order to make sure she was covered if something happens. And when that thing happened everyone was like “tough luck” pay for it yourself. It makes my blood boil.
Exactly - they are hypocrites who only want personal accountability for you, not them
Nice to see my charity donations to the Institute for Justice are being well spent!
A valuable investment. And the case precedent they set, may end up helping many down the road, including yourself possibly. 👍
They refused to even talk with me about my case.... I'll never give them a dime, and will forever remind people of my animals the state illegally seized and is refusing to return (even though I've explained to them with their own documents exactly why their seizure of my animals was illegal). Seems like the IJ helps just about anybody, but me. :-|
@@michaelshrader5139 They also support the spending of taxpayer dollars on religious schools. There are arguments for this stance, but it is not one I agree with, so I have not donated to them. YMMV
@@machintelligence--So because Biden is Not Trump, you voted for a Potato.
High Crime & Inflation, Open Borders, human trafficking & worsening drug crisis is better than Mean Tweets.
@@michaelshrader5139 Reach out to other channels (auditors, cop watchers, lawyers) and hopefully someone sees a case that has merit and agrees to help or possibly contact the IoJ themselves for you. Remember all these channels probably get asked for help constantly so it may take some time, but going through a lawsuit involving the government will probably be a long process as well. Good luck, know the feeling.
I'm amazed at how evil these cities can be, allowing their police force to trash an innocent person's home, and then claim, "that's their problem, not ours".
Thank you SL for bringing this atrocity to our attention, even providing a link to the Institute for Justice so that we can financially help their causes, which I did.
11
This is one of the origins of law, ''the Magna Carta'' 1215
''"No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, stripped of his rights or possessions, outlawed, exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"
Honestly , this law sets a bad precedent for police .When shit hits the fan you dont want police leadership thinking about property cost when lives are on the line .
Police budgets are going to bloat to compensate for all the additional costs or police departs are goin to be way more stingy about actually sending the swat if it means a substantial financial L .
@@alfredoperez9017 It would be interesting if you would feel the same way if a fugitive ran into your house, forced you out at gun point, then had a shoot out with police resulting in $100,000 in damages to your property.
Although I understand your argument, I don't believe the solution is for the innocent to have to pay. I'm thinking that cities would need to buy some sort of insurance for such situations.
And maybe there other ways to handle such situations. If the cops cut off water and electricity to the house, and took other non-damaging measures, maybe that would do the trick. It's worth someone doing some research so that a guy like you isn't left with a six-figure bill.
@@alfredoperez9017 No. Police just need not behave like entitled a**holes and be respectful of private property.
Cool! Eminent Domain! The police "took" your property and owe you full value. If they choose not want it later and return it, they need to return it as they received OR compensate the original owner enough to restore it to its previous condition.
The fact that the city or the department won’t take care of this after they do it, it’s disgusting and immoral. They act like it’s some big burden on them actually do the right thing.
Exactly, it’s not like they are trying to bring criminal charges for the destruction of her house, she just wants the damages paid for. It’s so stupid how little the government cares about us when we vote them in and pay their salaries. Imagine you treated your boss like crap everyday, that’s what government does to us.
The problem is the cops are operating out of fear and then do dumb things. If they would take a step back and think instead of just reacting, things would be different.
@@ajkendro3413 Not quite. The problem is that the cops have zero incentive to minimize the damage, since they know that they will not be held accountable for damage in any way. On the other hand, if they can decrease their chance of getting hurt by even one tenth of one percent by damaging the property, then they will happily damage the property.
yeah. i feel like the police handled the confrontation correctly. the fault falls on government, lawmakers, elected officials, ect. if the government damages property, no matter why, they should pay to repair it.
She hit the nail on the head. Far too many people are willing to spend more money just to avoid helping people or trying to correct what they did and undo the harm.
They make their lawyer friends rich. Remember politicians are often also lawyers. It is great when politicians can spend tax payer money on their lawyer friends.
To your point, I think there was an article here in GA recently about how a country spent 1.2Mil because it did not want to pay 10K per year, at most, for a trans employee's transition. An actuarial study of this showed that at most this would've increased the county's health insurance cost by 0.1%. In account terms that's meaningless.
@@crissd8283 It's even better when the victim gets the justice as in this case. Sounds like you don't think we should sue those politicians? What you said was 💯 % correct, but I encourage citizens to weigh it out...... Every now and then it goes as it should!! Even when it doesn't, make damn sure they receive the bad publicity. That may cost them more down the road 🎉 ❤
@@michaelkovalsky4907 Check out the blind guy Aurora police beat the hell out of for touching one of them with his feeling cane.
Or check out the not blind guy the Aurora police beat the hell out of because of mistaken identity of a robbery suspect, while saying "you messed with the biggest gang in denver buddy boy."
Both cases they absolutely refused to admit any wrong doing, and the robbery guy they kept trying to accuse of robbery despite no evidence and an alibi.
Both cases costing the city WAY more than any settlement would be.
Paying would be an admission of wrongdoing.
The police enforcement agencies (and other agencies) have long dropped the pretense of 'preserving life and property'. Instead, they go after their target at any cost.
Not true, they usually wait until the problem resolves itself. The don't care how many innocent people are killed in the process.
Property always comes before life be it a stolen car or burglarised home, or if its only a belt as Steve mentioned. That stolen belt meant destroying someones home. For what? A fine for shoplifting. Insanity.
Uncorroberated Police testimony often only an opinion on say turn signal distances or such nonsense is a major problem in the US. One persons word against anothers doesnt stand up in court anywhere else in modern western society.
As long as money is made from Policing there will be no end to unlimited budgets from public taxes paying for Jails, militarised Police Depts, and attorneys who cover the ass of this financial gold mine.
Ill never understand the need to pay cash bail for non violent crimes. Lock up those accused of violence and release the rest on bail conditions stating failure to appear or further charges while bailed mean jail. You would instantly slash 100,000s of untried innocent inmate numbers saving billions every year and remove a large part of the profit motive of local Pds and Sheriff dept who run local jails for innocent people awaiting trial.
Yes, because it's not really about justice, it's about making already powerful people and organizations feel more powerful still.
If that was true, we'd still be having high-speed chases.
Its always been like this its just visible now
20 years or so ago I was on jury duty and one of the cases involved eminent domain. a small used car lot was "in the path" of a city street expansion. during the voir dire, the judge asked about 100 potential jurors for a show of hands if they would set aside their personal beliefs and follow the law. about 75% were immediately excluded from serving. he barely had enough to get 15 jurors. the city won the case, the guy lost his business, and a year or two later the street was expanded but the same lot the businessman owned now had a bank on it.
Just donated $50 to Institute for Justice because of you publicizing them. Thank you for letting people know about them and the good work they do. I feel passionately about sovereign immunity and civil asset forfeiture, and now I have a way to put my money where my mouth is!
They're horrible, wouldn't even talk to me just sent me a "We decline to help you" e-mail message on the issue of my animals that were illegally seized by the state after I complained too much about the repeated flooding a wealthy developer was causing my home in Plum Grove Texas! It's like, I don't even matter.
@@michaelshrader5139 I think I'll take Steve's approbation over your denunciation.
@@michaelshrader5139 sorry for your situation but you have to think about the (likely) thousands of cases they’re pitched each year. They can’t accept every case and probably have to screen requests at a _very_ rapid rate. They might even have an auto-reply set up for when they aren’t accepting new cases.
🍺
I usually do $100 when I bother but I am old and have less expenses. The wife does simultaneously compliment my shopping skills while stating we are well enough we do not need to fight the little things. For me, $100 is a lot, for store is a layaway deposit, for a lawyers it a starting point for 8 minutes ... I wish I could give every charity a grand but I can not.
I know an apartment owner in Houghton MI. He typically rents to collage students. There have been many times local authorities would break apartment doors while pursuing these students for goods they're consuming during their leisure time. And of course these local departments refuse to pay for damage to the entry doors. So the apartment owner reinforced the door jambs with steel plates so they couldn't be so easily "kicked in". A the story goes, law enforcement then had to get him to open the apartments for their entry needs.
AND SHOW A WARRANT meaning SOMEONE was taking responsibility.
Or the owner could simply bill the renter for damages.
Perhaps the reason its been overlooked in the past is because eminent domain is used as a way for the government to legally force you to sell your property to them. In this case, its kind of coming at it backwards saying "You already used this citizen's property for the public good, now you need to compensate her for what you took". Glad she did get compensated and I hope this does pave the way for more successful compensation cases in the future.
She hasn’t been compensated yet. The case is being appealed. She has to win again in the appeals court/Supreme Court
My brother always told me you were just renting your property off the government while you are here on earth
❤😊 .... though I like to listen to your posts, this is one I truly love! It's about time government personnel and entities are held accountable for their actions, just like [they] do to the public. It is only right. Thank you for the insight and humor.
Disgusting that both the governments at all levels and the insurance companies can sleep at night knowing darn well they are weaselling out of doing the right thing. Thankfully she prevailed.
If insurance companies had to cover government acts, they'd go bankrupt or stop offering coverage at all. The government has enough impunity and moral hazard as it is.
Corporations have no conscience.
Some people can't sleep Untill they've screwed someone over.
Police officers should be required to get their own liability insurance, fresh out of the academy. If they screw up, their insurance goes up. If they can't get insurance, they can't be a police officer.
@@bl1429Again, that would be a conflict of interest. They would make police a business.
I saw a video where cops busted into the wrong house. They broke the door frame, door, lock destroyed totally. The home owner asked the cops who is going to pay to fix this. The 5 cops just looked at the busted door and frame off the hinges and shattered and just walked away without saying a word. Disgusting!!
Gang behavior
What were they supposed to say that followed their procedures?
That's armed home invasion like they used to do for wars
yes. I mean what were the cops to say?@@GoonyMclinux
The cops did the same to Afro-Man (rapper)
I live in McKinney. I wish I could have been on that jury. That makes me proud that my local residents are starting to see the light and realize that QI and SI are total BS and need to be abolished. I was called for jury summons on a criminal case a few weeks ago. I was dismissed after I answered that I watch a lot of cop watch videos and have seen way too many police violate law and civil rights, therefore I would have skepticism of police testimony unless I could review the individual officer’s personnel file and public complaints filed.
Why would you say that if you really wanted to be on the jury? Why??
Right, you’ve got to play the game :)
Not volunteering this kind of information (you’re not lying, just don’t voluntarily give it up) is how you get on the jury and can help make a difference.
The state wouldn’t want you - a cop skeptic - on the jury, but the defendant would!
QI and SI?
@@kevinbarber2795 qualified immunity, sovereign immunity
Your exactly who needs to be on a juror . You sound like you could weigh both sides and put justice back into our justice system.
Ridiculous disrespect for the homeowner. Glad she won. Wondering of update.
I truly hope Grandma wins all the way to the Supreme Court!!! 🙏
If I had the money, I'd donate to the Institute of Justice!!!
There is a famous case in Henderson, NV where the family's dog was killed, the owner jailed because he refused to allow police to stage. They lost everything. The police not only invaded their home, took food, destroyed items in the house & arrested the owner because he protested. I don't think the IfJ was available or just getting started. Either way, it left a bad taste in many mouths. Great case!! Hopefully this stands all the way to SCOTUS. Thanks Steve!
I saw a police body cam from California where a guy was barricaded in a home alone... Cops set up a "snipers nest" in a stairwell in a neighboring home... I always wondered if they had to consent.... Seems that they would but with police these days who knows.
You can't fight city hall
@@justicedemocrat9357 yes you can
@@justicedemocrat9357 you can, by PUBLICLY shaming them
@@roy19491 there other, much spicier ways. Important to not Martyr them, though.
I love this approach. Finally a case that may stop some BS.
Next time, maybe they just leave a dead kidnapper in her house.
It's reflective of reality too, which is always a good thing.
Unfortunately no, this is not the first cased use the eminent domain argument, and the cases are a mixed bag, some wins some losses, some have gone to federal court and lost, it's a patchwork and until the supreme court sees it, it will stay that way, heck I wouldn't be surprised if there's reversals in some district's
Some states will just change the laws to find a way around it.
Thank you, I’m glad the lady was made right. I also appreciate learning of the Institute of Justice. That sounds like a great cause.
I just donated $25 to the Institute for Justice because of your appeal on their behalf.
Thank you for the interesting cases you highlight, Steve!
I gave then $250, I wish everyone could afford that much. I remember when I could not, it was not that long ago.
The "qualified" in "qualified immunity" supposedly means that public officials are covered _only_ if any damages occur whilst they are doing their jobs in the normal manner. Is destroying a house a typical action for police? I'd like to see a jury decide that point.
I would say that if there is a 'reasonable' decision that a SWAT team is needed, then the SWAT team will use the methods they consider are reasonable and normal 'in the circumstances', which is the circumstances they have been trained for and the reason they exist. So I would say the police would likely win that argument.
Qualified immunity and sovereign immunity are entirely different things.
Doesn't a judge usually rule on qualified immunity before it gets anywhere near a jury?
"Qualified immunity" is different to "sovereign immunity".
If qualified immunity applies then you can't sue the individual public official for something they did in the normal pursuit of their job. (IE: You should be suing the government, not the individual.)
If sovereign immunity applies then you can't sue the government. (Usually this is because the harm came about as a direct result of a necessary function of government - foreign policy is a classic example. Eg: "I had a great business deal set up with a company in Russia which you ruined with your sanctions" would fail due to sovereign immunity.)
In this case, the argument that the police officers' actions caused damage so the homeowner should be paid fails due to both qualified immunity (can't sue the individual police officers) and sovereign immunity (can't sue the government). I personally think the latter is a bit of a stretch... but I guess it's well-established law, so there's no way of arguing with it other than to push for specific federal legislation.
@@herseem If SWAT is needed, by definition, No circumstance is normal or routine. Gladly most don't think alike otherwise govt accountability would be nonexistent.
I've been following this case since they first destroyed her home. Yes, there was an intruder who barricaded himself in there and the police had to get him, BUT, that does not divest them of the responsibility for the damages done. This is especially important as insurance will not cover damages caused by "police actions." So grateful for IJ!
I think there's a mixup somewhere along the line in the system. The individual policemen might have to have some kind of immunity to getting sued for damage that happens when they trample someone's house since an individual person couldn't afford to do what he needs to. But the police department or the city (or their insurance) should still pay for it. Now for some reason, the city is claiming IT is immune to payment too, which is indeed quite silly.
@@TimoRutanen With respect, that is common practice. Cities/governmental bodies never take ownership of damages caused in pursuing miscreants. That falls on the property owner. Now, of course, the property owner is able to sue the perp, but guess how far that gets them, especially if they suicide or are killed in the process.
This lady had the house sold, but it hadn't closed yet. Of course, that sale fell through, causing a double loss on her part. Read up on the case. You will be amazed at the damages done that the city tried to skate on. She is not the only one to have it happen to, either.
Link to trial info?
The police could have waited him out.
Where’s the fun in that?
Steve, these towns and other government entities are using taxpayer monies to defend these cases. There are fiduciary laws that control the proper use of these taxpayer monies. When they spend more defending these cases than it would have cost to pay for the damages, I wonder if this would then fall under the improper use of said funds
These cases really show how there is an "us and them" attitude with those who label themselves public "servants".
Servants are the worst
They are the enemy, don't kid yourself
Our government is parasitic.
It's gov't of, by, and for itself.
Tip of the iceberg. Govt Law enforcers are no longer "publ8c servants"
Steve represented my family in a failure to warrant case. He is a good man in a profession full of frauds.
How did this ever not violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
It's both disturbing and disgusting that local or state officials and police would take issue with compensating individuals for damage caused capturing dangerous individuals.
Eminent Domain is outlined by the 5th amendment in the US, so in this case, it was used
The judges interpret these things. The judges favor police.
Why would the police and DA have an issue with a legal defense that allows them to drop a nuke on your home and kill every member of your family and neighborhood and there is no accountability or responsibility for any deaths or damages? Of course courts would uphold this kind of BS immunity, gives them incentive to not look at possible side effect or consequences
Someone has to raise the issue and frame it in a way that does not infringe on previously established case law such as sovereign immunity. If there was a hint of "the police did this [in the course of their lawful duty] and the owner should be compensated for damage the police inflicted on the property", the case would have been summarily judged.
Since the suit said (in effect) "the police took the property [in the course of their lawful duty so for a public purpose 'public safety'] and the owner should receive just compensation for the change in value of the property while it was in their custody" and a jury agreed.
@@4k8t Bingo. I've wondered why more attorneys haven't pursued this avenue sooner.
Eminent Domain! I love it! Good for this woman! There are so many people whose homes have been destroyed only to realize, ‘Oops, wrong house!’ If these gov’t officials had their home destroyed in like manner would they be so cavalier!
For the government, these cases are never about the money. It's about maintaining their power.
Money power
Ain't it amazing how no suspect ever holes-up in a wealthy person's mansion that the police then destroy trying to get them?
What was that famous line ?
Something about " trading one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away " ?
Everything in this system is about money.
As my late mother-in-law used to say, "The principle of the matter can be very expensive." It violates common sense and any vestige of justice that property owners in cases like this can't get compensated. Finally some good news!
Well, the entire idea you have rights is delusional, you have temporary permissions until the government decides to take them away, eminent domain means you have no right to property and the fraudulent US documents declare, and the same for so-called freedom as the Japanese citizens discovered in WW2 or life, as innocents murders in TX have experienced. You can not even poop on toilet if a LEO decides to take it away under civil asset forfeiture. DOJ what an ironic name! Should be Department of Takings !!
Hoping this precedent takes off. We'll see legislation, policy, and institutional practices change when the parties involved are finally taken to task (instead of hiding behind a shield like qualified immunity)
Don't like Qualified Immunity? Help abolish it!
Search "Americans Against Qualified Immunity"
Thank you! I will donate to them today!! Fingers crossed for their continued success with this case, and in for the new case law.
I remember that video and how much damage was done. It is my opinion, based on what I have seen in video and witnessed in person, that law enforcement cause unnecessary damage, because they know that they have the immunity and therefore are not as prudent or careful when people's property is concerned. I'm glad to see a win for this lady, and I hope she recovers all her loses, including the time and effort to pursue this case.
.... hey look, there is still one window intact, give me another tear gas shell ....
Made me think about Dirty Harry and that poor lady's diner; "you feel lucky...?"
Extra rounds expended, multiple unneeded tear gas and flashbangs used, and all the doors and windows smashed.... because "well, our department doesn't always get the training that we need, so we turned it into a big, destructive training exercise..."
because they dont care. cops are almost untouchable. what kind of people do you get when they realize being a cop gives that much power? cops do whatever they want to.
Police have the right to use all the toys that they have it’s a law 😂
Honestly, insurance companies are so corrupt.
I'm so sorry for this woman.
It could & can happen to any one of us at any time😢
❤️🇺🇸❤️
Not all insurance policies are the same. They can have different coverages and exclusions. You'd have to read the policy in question to know if the damage in this case should have been covered.
Its the people who vote for low taxes but still want stuff.
They then get a government that does not want to spend money on things that will not get them votes.
Yes the insurance company is not great, but it will be in the contract specifically because of issues like this. Primarily here it's the governmental side that's in the wrong here.
This case is hardly about insurance companies. An uninsured person should also be able to be made whole when someone destroys their home. The government shouldn’t be able to do this and pawn it off on the people and their insurance companies. They government should have to compensate people fairly, and they can get their own insurance to cover it.
@@michaelsommers2356 The interesting things are those not covered. You get a list of coverages and exclusions, but what is not covered is only implied, not specifically written out. How would it be? If you take insurance for your home that includes natural disaster, burglary and so on, but cops show up... then the cops are not a natural disaster nor burglars - they are cops.
I had an argument with some buddies years back when one of these "cops destroyed the house" stories hit. This was basically one of the idle arguments I had made. Under the 5th they should sue for FORCED eminent domain. Usually its city forcing homeowner, but theirs no theoretical reason shouldn't work in reverse. The city already took it when they destroyed it, the state usually has predetermined calculations they use, and, since it was already taken, either they have to buy the entire thing at pre-taking rates, or make it whole again and return it to owners since that would be cheaper than the entire property for "fiscal responsibility". It's a bit different, but I'm glad to see it works.
ThrawnFett123, and your buddies were right because you didn't do jack about it for years, and it took someone else to actually go to court over it.
@Gavno Nadoroge I haven't had my house destroyed by cops, and I am not a lawyer. I have 0 standing to help random people I've never met with an at the time completely unproven legal theory based on taking the law literally
@@ThrawnFett123 it doesn't matter what your excuses were, the point is you didn't do anything about it, and yet in your original post you made it sound like it was a good thing. if you have a natural talent to find unproven legal theories, why don't you do something about it, and actually use it, instead of making excuses?
@Gavno Nadoroge give me three hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. Right now. I have an idea, discussed with those same buddies, to make a mechanical trigger that can store trigger pulls from a single person, and be released with a safety all at once. ATF rules state safeties are encouraged and can be used to stop a trigger action. A machine gun is one trigger pull resulting in more than one bullet. There's a gap there, that a clockwork mechanism since electronic has been ruled against, gives a legally sound theory they cannot touch by statutes. Second point besides the money, you're gonna have to pull the trigger, and release the safety yourself. Don't worry, as soon as you transfer the funds, I can get the ball rolling. All you have to do is pay, and in less than 9 months you WILL be in front of a circuit judge
@@ThrawnFett123 i can't give you that amount of money. however i can see how machine gun enthusiasts, or even a gun company might be interested in contributing to that idea. so you can do some things to make your idea happen. start a gofundme campaign, and ask your buddies to publicize it. also write to gun publications and ask their members towards contributing to your idea.
It's a stretch, but I love the creativity...and hope it sticks. It does have a certain logic, that enforcing the criminal law is a public purpose/use. Although it certainly strains the historical understanding of public use. But the law has developed. We've got regulatory taking, etc., and public use does not have to be full and complete but can be temporary. The sad thing is that each state doesn't spread this small burden collectively through state reparations. (It's also wrong that it isn't covered by regular insurance...when it would be covered if criminals had done the damage). This issue makes me think about the 1906 SF Earthquake when firemen dynamited houses for fire breaks.
Y'know it's amazing how much money, time, and equipment the police are prepared to throw around to nail offenders for minor crimes but then suddenly when they've committed what amount to crimes of their own in the process they suddenly act like they're penniless. The real game is revealed: it's all about some people feeling powerful rather than actual justice. In any event this is a perfect legal argument and defense and I hope it succeeds and is carried through at the highest levels. Though with the corruption evident in the highest levels of our government for an extended time especially in the Supreme Court I doubt it.
Also, if they were liable for the costs they might think ahead and act more responsibly rather than going nuts.
That has zero to do with this case and this video, though. Unless you consider kidnapping a 15 year old girl to be a minor crime, which is different than a crime against a minor.
@@Max_Griswald yeah thats my concern here, i'm generally in favor of this case law, but it does have potential to dissuade police from intervening in similar cases, which could allow actually major criminals to slip away and repeat offend.
I feel there needs to be some balance on this
I believe this same legal theory can be applied to cases involving Civil Asset Forfeiture. They are finding, suspecting, and seizing the money for public good - then the owner must be compensated with different "clean/legal" money - which ostensibly, only the entity making the seizure really has "clean money".
Except technically, you don’t own money,the federal reserve does.
@@boataxe4605 sure, but you own the value that money represents
I'm not saying that civil asset forfeiture is a sensible argument, but I'm saying that since they are insisting that the particular pieces of fungible currency are involved in a crime, and it has value, and they are seizing it, that they have to compensate fairly the citizen who is not being charged with any crime. It is simply a matter of using the basis of their argument back against them. The Federal reserve does not in fact own all currency that is issued out into the world. It is a guarantor of the fungible value.
@@boataxe4605 no they don't show me the law that says you don't own your own money.
@@boataxe4605 unless it’s coins though eh
The fact that this is even something that has to be done is crazy.
This episode popped up on my TH-cam page this morning. Love seeing other Michiganders using their expertise to help others like this. Are your microphones originals? I was in the radio biz for 50 years and used many like those in various settings. I’m a ham radio operator (W8PHN) and have a “Lollipop” mic, like the one on your shelf, I use when firing up my 70’s classic Kenwood TS-520. Keep up the good work. By the way, grew up in Flint/Davison back when it was a great place to live. Brother and sister still in Davison and Fenton. Not too far from Atlas.
Dave M.
Rockford, MI
THANKS Steve for bringing light to these stories so we all know what's going on!!
Steve is a good guy. I cannot say the same for the IJ however. 😐
Let's hope this case gets referene down the road. Polar opposite experience about 10 years ago in eastern Washington state: Police chased an armed robbery suspect who jumped my in-laws' fence, police crashed into it, kicked through a gate, ripped off a back-yard shed door to capture the baddie. The next morning, without even a phone call, a representative from the police dept showed up to make sure everyone was ok, gave a case number and said to get it all repaired and send them the bill. Easy peasey.
SilentKnightStudio, that's the way it should always be handled, but unfortunately, that's a rare occurrence.
In other words, they actually did the RIGHT THING! Wow! 😲
Clearly , the hired help know their proper place in that town and conduct themselves accordingly .
Unfortunately , this is a very rare situation and not typical of most governments anywhere .
Most heart warming thing I've heard in a long time. Boy it's nice seeing real justice happening for a change. Definitely going to be looking to send a little something over to IJ.
Be better if they took these settlements directly from the police pension funds. Might make these assholes think twice before they decide to play super soldier to catch a shoplifter.
@@LilTikiBoy I don't know that that is legally possible, but I like the way you think. ...never hurts to have a little skin in the game. Fundamentally, the problem with society is we have a proliferation of systems that do not have aligned incentives structures.
@@LilTikiBoy It was a hostage situation but a shoplifter, is that what Lehto told you, it was shoplifting? The contractor, hired by the homeowner, took a fifteen year old hostage and barricaded himself in the house with the hostage. Do not take my word for it, look this up for yourself. Then make an informed decision.
"Hello judge. were you the one presiding over this case?"
...
"You were? Then, as the owner of this establishment, I am trespassing you. Please leave and do not return.
I only just heard about this case a few days ago. And it's already won in favor of the home owner! Awsome!!!Awesome!!! Go IJ
its crazy that it takes so much to make people do the right thing.
It's amazing to think that the government has been doing this for so long and they're fighting to keep this status quo.
And people think that it's perfectly fine to allow them to continue down the path of tyranny
Amazing? Not really. The alternative would be a complete disaster. Imagine if there was no sovereign immunity and the government had to pay for all the damages done to a property by police doing their jobs. So if you owned a property and it's getting a bit banged up and the kitchen could do with an upgrade.. So why not give the police an anonymous tip that something very illegal is going on and have the cops storm the place and get the city paying for the renovations. People would abuse the f*** out of that law
Great outcome , well do. Brilliant job by Institute For Justice getting this in front of a jury!
I think the part of cases like this that makes me the most angry is that the decision to not pay ultimately comes down to one person or a small group such as a mayor, a city council and city lawyers. So these are people actually living in the same city giving the middle finger to a fellow resident of the city. So while sovereign immunity may have been based on immunity for a king ruling by divine right none of these city officials, employees of the voters, rule by divine right.
Yep, a mayor is just your owner if you live in a city which is WHY I do not.
It's always class struggle. Every single time. Owning class vs working class.
They don't care about us.
Mayors have a tendency to be horrifically corrupt.
No mortal king rules by Devine right. The uneducated people in the past were easily fooled.
I wonder if the city does not want it's insurance rates to skyrocket or get dropped. I'm thinking like how insurance providers in Florida were dropping clients. Can insurance even do that with police or a city?
The INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE is a very important organization
It was overturned
@@everythingpony That changes nothing about the value of the organization.
Very true.
Yes it is. Canada needs a similar organization like it.
Just a thought: Say the daughter or the owner of the house went to the SWAT team in the middle of the raid and said "I want to go into my house now" and they said no, would that stand to strengthen the chances of winning under this theory? Them saying no would show certain that the house was taken and they would not grant her access.
Nah, in that case they are protecting the public by refusing access to a dangerous building or area. After all, there was potentially a suspect in the area or building.
@@gmailisaretardbut her home was private property she is entitled to enjoy on her own, not a public place. If they would restrict her from entering her own property, then that may strengthen the case that her home was taken from her, if only temporarily.
Best news I’ve heard in a long time!! Maybe all those people that the police went to the wrong house will get their money back too ! Finally loophole for the people!!!!
IJ is out there doing great work.
Thanks for posting. Progress is one win at a time. Thanks to the Institute of Justice. More thanks to everyone helping to support them.
Great story Steve. Thanks for bringing the Institute for Justice to our attention.
Yeah they help just about anybody BUT me of course... they wouldn't even talk with me about my illegally seized animals. 😕
@@michaelshrader5139 you realize they can't take every case? They choose one's that might advance case law. Sorry about your pets though.
As a Brit, I find it bizarre than ancient English common law on monarchical sovereignty is used to give US government agencies immunity from liability when I've never heard of sovereign immunity being used for the same purpose in the UK
Don't like many attorneys, but I sure love you. Thank you for the work you do in exposing corruption.
Since attorneys stand between a LEO and us I like them. The are the true protectors.
Its kind of infuriating that there would even be any question about whether the property owner should be compensated, even moreso that its just assumed by the state that they should not be. Regardless of any justification they could provide, it is objectively unethical. It makes no difference to the property owner _why_ their property was damaged or whether it was damaged by a criminal or the state.
The government and the criminal can both destroy your home, *but only the criminal will be punished for it.*
One of the most interesting cases I've ever heard about. It's strange that the government doesn't already compensate owners of property they destroy in the line of duty. Eminent domain was a great argument and I believe it could win in higher courts as well. Hopefully the people who tries will be smart enough to get the best lawyers to handle the case. Treating property damaged in the line of duty as an eminent domain case should be the law of the land.
The problem before was they could deny and cover it still
This would be a huge and just ruling if it makes it to the Supreme Court and they uphold the ruling. I am so over the complete lack of accountability and the unjustness of immunity in a country where the government is supposed to exist at the behest of the people.
This same thing happened to a guy I knew. Someone ran into his house who was a criminal. Well long story short they destroyed the family’s trailer and refused to fix any of it so the family became homeless. I was always annoyed that the government can just cause you to become homeless and not help you at all. (I’m from ky )
Did that person have a minor against her will? Not saying this homeowner did not deserve damages she absolutely did. I just don't get how many people are willing to bypass responsibility of the suspect and go straight to making taxpayers foot the bill..
@@I.am_Groot If the suspect was responsible, they would never have become criminals in the first place. What a stupid fucking argument
@@I.am_Groot regardless, someone needs to pay for it not named the homeowner.
@@skillethead15 Agreed. Tax dollars start paying off every knucklehead who causes an emergency response then we should also get to decide the punishment.
@@I.am_Groot The person they were pursuing didn't destroy the home, broke a window maybe, but wasnt breaking down doors or gassing the house. If you run from the police in a vehicle, the cops pursue without due regard, hit & kill someone, it's not the person who ran thats responsible for that death.
if you think 3 or multiple solutions to a problem, you'll almost always find a way that works. That attorney deserves all the credit he gets. bravo honestly
The argument against "imminent domain" that I had heard was that the property was returned, so no compensation is required. I'm eager to see this go all the way to the Supreme Court if it must. Cops that destroy private property with reckless abandon need to be held responsible. If that means they need to think twice before driving a tank through someone's front door, then all the better.
Returned destroyed so they must pay for the damages…
There is a lot of legal precedent about what amounts to a "taking" of a property. I would say that surrounding it with armed personnel and destroying it might constitute a taking. The higher courts will have to decide. Qualified immunity is intended to protect individual people like cops and government officials when they act in good faith. In an eminent domain case, the defendant would not be a police officer or government official, but the government itself. If they "take" the house, they have to pay the plaintiff for the house, but then they own it. So they can fix it up and sell it to recoup some of their expenses, and no individual cop or official will have to pay. In a takings case, you force the government to compensate the owner of the house at fair market value. I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding.
The fact they think its okay to destroy an innocent persons home and not in the very least help repair it, is absurd!
This makes so much sense. Obviously the police have the right to destroy property in the pursuit of justice but compensation should be part of the process. There should be a department in the police force that accepts complaints, reviews police reports, goes and assesses the damage and then negotiates a compensation payment. This should be all without having to involve lawyers and the legal system.
Uh no, not "in the pursuit of justice" they do not have the right to just blatantly destroy private property! To protect life, they have that right... and in this case, the hostage was already safe and the police knew that the suspect was the only person still in the house and rather than sending in a cheap unmanned drone to get eyes on the suspect they instead proceeded to wreck and destroy the house! That wasn't right, and it wasn't lawful by my take!
@@michaelshrader5139 I also thought of that. The hostage was safe so they could have taken their time and hopefully discover that the man was dead before destroying the house.
Tremendous use of imminent domain. I hope this case gets appealed and progresses to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court rules in her favor. That would amount to a complete reconsideration of how government entities respond to these situations, and hopefully would result in just settlements out of court for the majority of these incidents.
Super...defund...code enforcement also...they are destroying Florida property rights everyday
POLICE yelling at the garagedoor "STOP RESISTING!!!"
Court Decisions:
District Court (2022): The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Baker, ruling that the City’s conduct indeed constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment and the Texas Constitution2.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (2023): However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case3. The court’s reasoning was based on a novel interpretation of the Takings Clause, suggesting a “necessity” exception to its protections1.
En Banc Rehearing: Despite expressing sympathy for Baker, the court denied rehearing en banc, leaving the issue unresolved1.
As a German I find this concept of sovereign/governmental immunity very strange. You normally can't go after the officers in person (unless malice or gross neglect is involved), but the state is certainly responsible for damages with a few restrictions. The primary exception is if you are the reason for the operation in the first place, e.g. since you caused a fire.
I do think Germany has no 'fruit of the poison tree' doctrine, so illegally obtained evidence might still be used in court.
The US is very strict with that. So the germany system as weaknesses as well.
And let's be fair any criminal case against a police officer in Germany is closed due to 'lack of public insterest' or some other ridiculous reason.
Procecutors and the police work hand in hand and are best buddies, so there commonly is no independent investigation against a police office (this can depent on the state though).
That's genius. It sounds like sound reasoning to me. Something has to be done to stop the government from doing this. It happens way too often and if you are innocent you should not be punished by simply owning property.
In the 70's the city of Phoenix wanted to buy all the properties around 7th st and Jefferson in order to build a baseball stadium. My grandfather refused to sell his mechanic shop so the city sent in an inspector to look for a reason to condemn the building and of course they found a reason......bad wiring. The city then (without doing anything to fix the bad wiring) let the Sheriff's department use the building as a maintenance shot for a number of years then leased it to two other companies before tearing it down. When the city took the building form my grandfather they gave him pennies on the dollar. Eminent domain is a scam the cities use in most cases just to get what they want and almost never pay what the property is worth cause they know most people don't have the resources to fight them.
There was a city (I think it was in Texas) that used eminent domain to take a bunch of property to build a stadium. They ended up taking more than they needed and once everything was built they sold off property around the edges for 10x what they gave the owners in the eminent domain settlement. Those owners then took them to court claiming that the city selling the property established the value and they were undercompensated. The city claimed that the stadium improved the property value so they were justified. The city lost and had to make some big payouts.
I think the city was correct that the stadium did increase property values but I expect the jury was outraged that the city took more than they needed and then profited from it.
@@roberteltze4850 I always like hearing the government get screwed gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside
@@roberteltze4850 And all for a damned sports stadium! To play games in! That's just nuts and not at all what Eminent Domain was intended for!
Something government seems incapable of understanding is that part of being a professional is being held accountable for your mistakes, even when they are "reasonable" and/or "made in good faith." All other private citizens are open criminal/civil liability for mistakes that are reasonable and good intentioned, barring certain circumstances in certain jurisdictions where Good Samaritan law applies.