18 ms·

Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

synt4x1k0 7y ago
"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent domain. The district court agreed with the defendants: it concluded that “the tactical decisions that ultimately destroyed [the Lechs’] home were made pursuant to the state’s police powers and not the power of eminent domain.” App. vol. 2, 399. Thus, the district court ruled, the defendants’conduct did not constitute a taking for purposes of the Taking Clause." https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf
- visarga 7y ago
  It's ok if the police does it.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    Explicitly the opposite of what was said.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      It says that this would not be permissible under eminent domain, but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior. "It's ok if the police does it" is a fair summary.
      - diffeomorphism 7y ago
        > but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior. No, they made no comment on whether that is acceptable. The court case was about "alleging violations of the Takings Clause". The court said that this clause does not apply in this case: - (1) when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking. - (3) any damage to the Lechs’ home therefore fell outside the ambit of the Takings Clause. This does not say anything about it being "ok if the police does it" or even comments on whether it is okay at all. It just says that they sued over the wrong law.
        jawns 7y ago
        > when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking Isn't that moving the goalposts, though? What this ruling effectively says is that as long as the state doesn't invoke eminent domain to take a citizen's property, then it's not eminent domain, even if the end result is that a citizen's property is taken? I would much prefer a reading of eminent domain that says if a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property, regardless of its justification for doing so, then that's Taking.
        diffeomorphism 7y ago
        I am not sure that is preferable. If "a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property" what does it derive this authority from? If it is from eminent domain it is allowed to do A but must follow rules B. If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case, the first question is not whether it has to follow rules B, but whether it is allowed to do A at all.
        jawns 7y ago
        > If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case My point is that this _is_ eminent domain, because eminent domain should be defined by the action (government taking control of private property) not the purported intention.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Yes, it seems important to note this court ruled on whether police actions violated the takings clause, not on, e.g., whether the police were justified in their use of force, or even if the homeowner should be compensated on some other grounds.
  - nosianu 7y ago
    What's the point of the law if you can get lost dealing in technicalities at the cost of complete and utter disregard for outcomes? Sure, everybody is technically correct. Loosely reminds of of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_t... -- people getting caught in admiring the cleverness of their arguments and forgetting what the whole original purpose was. Or when some gamers spending more time in the virtual fantasy world then in the real one, solving "challenges" there rather than here.
    - rebuilder 7y ago
      If you go to the court to get a ruling on a specific claim and the court rules on that claim, I don't think you can call that a technicality. Now, why the lawyer recommended this line of action is an interesting question. My uneducated guess would be that there was precedent in favour of the police, and framing it as a constitutional issue was seen to be the best possibility. As a whole, this entire thing sounds insane, of course. But the court did what they were supposed to do, it's the rest of this whole story that is messed up.
bloak 7y ago
There was a similar, though less spectacular, case in the UK, in which the police spent more on lawyers successfully defending the case than it would have cost to compensate the person whose door they had smashed down in the middle of the night because they had incompetently got the wrong address.
- Sharlin 7y ago
  Establishing precedent is important, especially in common law jurisdictions.
  - dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
    Not causing the general public to fear and mistrust the police is even more important.
    - 100100010001 7y ago
      Wouldn’t law enforcement getting away with crimes cause fear? It seems like it would show they are above the law and can act like bullies without repercussions. Admitting a mistake and trying to make it right will gain trust.
      - dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
        Yes that is what I was saying.
    - ptah 7y ago
      too late
      - FabHK 7y ago
        Depends on the country.
- jalla 7y ago
  I wonder how that squares with the Peelian principles, policing by consent, in the UK. Do you have a reference?
lvturner 7y ago
I'm just amazed at how the theft of two belts and a shirt from Walmart escalated to the point where a house blew up. It's like something out of a comedy calamity movie. How common is escalation like this during the course of law enforcement? (I'm hoping this is an extreme case?)
- akerro 7y ago
  There more extreme cases: >Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-pays-when-dea-destroys-your-vehicle-kills-your-employee-during-botched-sting-hint-not-dea.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-p...
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    > The judge points out that Villasana also testified that he was "not aware" of any policy instructing him to notify the vehicle's owner of its potential use in a drug sting operation Ah, ignorance of the law. Fine for them, not for you. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
    - hanlonGetFucked 7y ago
      With the DEA's penchant for "parallel construction" on the table, other ideas enjoy improved probability. If the DEA is often drawing upon unconstitutional sources of information to build constitutional evidence as it constructs cases against organized crime, what does it do with unconstitutional information in all other situations? Answer: whatever it wants. Hanlon's razor must be deemed dull and rusty here, since the posture and stance of the DEA reeks of malice, and parallel construction techniques certainly preclude ignorance, if not incompetence. Maybe the DEA had a clue about why a small time trucker might make for such a useful idiot. Maybe they had a clue about how to lean on someone in just the right way, to march them into suicidal danger. Maybe they knew they were going to walk away from this disaster in the making, before they even approached the guys, and they their hands would stay clean. Maybe they arrived at a decision that they couldn't bring a case against this guy, but they could definitely take his company out of the game, and they decided that they knew enough turn a blind eye to absolutely lethal moral hazards, and hobble a company they disdained. It probably smells like an extrajudicial action because it is.
epistasis 7y ago
> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart. After he left the store, police say, he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun. Eventually, SWAT officers entered the home and apprehended him. ... > The court noted that if police officers "willfully or wantonly" destroy property, they can be sued in a civil tort case. Lech tried to pursue that legal argument in Colorado state court, but he was not successful. Here is the real problem. Eminent domain is clearly not the right strategy. But when a police department is so out of control that they damage a home enough to get it condemned, over a single armed man, and they are not considered to have acted to wantonly destroy property, our society is seriously screwed up. Every day, these sort of toxic over reactions and abuse of power are making people think less and less of police power. Even those that the police do not abuse are starting to believe the "ACAB" line. Police need to start admitting to being able to make mistakes, because when they refuse to admit to any error when they have made obvious errors, they look morally weak and we stop thinking they deserve any of the massive amount of power we see them abuse.
- smcl 7y ago
  Precisely. The Police are keen to do little "viral" stunts like shooting hoops with kids or buying shoes for homeless guys (ok, fine things to do) ... but when it really comes down to stuff that actually matters - the countless killings and general misery they cause to minorities - they close ranks and put on a united front, and often have the audacity to play the victim. This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get behind their shittiest members, effectively taking collective responsibility for them. I am really not sure what else they expect, really.
  - koolba 7y ago
    What’s ACAB?
    - smcl 7y ago
      It stands for "All Cops Are Bastards"
    - 7y ago
huffmsa 7y ago
> 100 officers, 19 hours and a Bearcat APC Man, when you have staff and resources, I guess you need to justify the bills. Instead of, you know, putting a couple units outside the house and waiting a week. Those must have been some expensive belts and shirts. Though there's no way the use of force here is comparable with the value of items being reclaimed.
- fluffything 7y ago
  Somebody stole 50$ worth of stuff. Instead of letting insurance pay and calling it a day, lest waste a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fully destroy somebody's home for another couple of hundred thousand dollars in damages. What should happen here is that whoever thought this was the right course of action should be fired, and liable.
  - SapporoChris 7y ago
    You realize the suspect was firing at police officers? I am in no way defending the destruction of a home. However, I do realize this is not a situation where a couple of officers can be posted outside the home and wait the situation out. An armed suspect firing out of a home is a clear and present danger to the community. edited to add quote Who drives armored cars? People who expect gun-fire. Usually people with some fire-power of their own. -Burn Notice
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      Unless he had one of those drum magazine glocks, he'd have been out of ammo after 15-45 rounds (depending on if he had backup magazines). They could have just parked the APC out front and waited a bit. No need to crash it through the front door.
      - SapporoChris 7y ago
        I agree, no need to destroy the house. But significant activity would be required to secure the neighborhood. There have been instances where innocent bystanders get shot. I've never been shot at, but I suspect there is probably a very aggressive response that humans have to be shot at. A response serves well in most situations, not so much in this one. I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it. My outrage really isn't at the police officers actions, but I understand being outraged about it. My outrage is at the courts. Although I do understand it appears this gentleman may have selected the wrong court.
highprofittrade 7y ago
Another sign of authoritative police state with absolute power over citizens. We allowed this through the people we elected. Shame.
DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
One would assume that if the damaged caused by the police was justifiable, then the responsibility for damage compensation lies with the criminal suspect in the case - and if they're unable to compensate the homeowner then the remainder should come from the municipality or state's general victims' fund. Does Denver or CO have such a fund?
- 100100010001 7y ago
  I wouldn’t qualify using military grade equipment in Colorado for stealing two belts and a shirt justifiable.
  - topkai22 7y ago
    It wasn't for a belt and two shirts, it was for attempted murder of police officers. Yes, the interaction might have started with simple shoplifting, but the suspect began firing at police officers. The home was destroyed after a 19 hour stand off with a intoxicated subject who continued to take meth throughout the standoff, during which the suspect continued to fire at police, and after which the suspect was apprehended alive. I'm trying to think of a more justifiable use of force outside of a hostage situation, but I'm having trouble thinking of one. See https://kdvr.com/2015/06/08/greenwood-village-police-standoff-suspect-tried-to-kill-them/ https://kdvr.com/2015/06/08/greenwood-village-police-standof... for a bit more background.
- nulbyte 7y ago
  Justification of an act does not relieve one from its consequences.
Hoasi 7y ago
> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart. After he left the store, police say, he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun. Eventually, SWAT officers entered the home and apprehended him. So Lech's house was 100% destroyed as a result. Now that is a lot of damage over two stolen belts and a shirt. > In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors. Even if the shoplifter was armed and firing at officers, their response looks slightly disproportionate. The interesting bit here is that they didn't kill him. > The suspect in the case, who was wanted in connection with shoplifting, was taken into custody after a 19-hour standoff. More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident. OK, then. > "As unfair as it may seem, the Takings Clause simply does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense," the appeals court wrote. Yes, it totally reads like a joke. > "There needs to be a line drawn for what police departments can do and what they need to do to compensate citizens for this kind of damage," Lech said. "I didn't want to sue anyone for millions. I just wanted fair market value for my house." That seems reasonable. If the police forces are not responsible, can a case be held against the shoplifter to pay those damages? Not that it would be in any way more realistic given that he is insolvent, but the lawyers should try every route.
ptah 7y ago
Either this is from an 80s cop movie about a renegade cop or it is a scene from a police state. EDIT: This is also a symptom of militarization of police. How would they even have the means to damage a house like this otherwise
koliber 7y ago
If we were to distribute the costs across different parties, how could we do it, and who could be included in this distribution? - The suspect - Mr Lech (owner of damaged property) - Mr Lech's insurance - The police department / other involved agencies / city - The store from which the belt was stolen - Insurance for the store from which the belt was stolen - Individual police officers or superiors who made a call for an excessive reaction I am sure this is not an exhaustive list, but expands it to more than Mr. Lech vs. the police. As a mental exercise, let's sort this list by who should be responsible, using whatever metric. When I do it, Mr. Lech comes out on the bottom, regardless of what I use as the criteria. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can come up with a way where Mr. Lech would be at the top of such a list.
- maest 7y ago
  Nit: "The store from which the belt was stolen" should probably go under Mr Lech - or at least equivalent.
  - koliber 7y ago
    I place it right above Mr. Lech. They were a victim. But they also had a minor amount of [well justified) agency in taking the first steps to create this situation--calling police for minor theft. I am not saying they are wrong in doing so. There are other ways of handling minor theft. Mr. lech was a victim who was completely passive here.
  - gmiller123456 7y ago
    I'd disagree. I don't know the policies of this specific store, but most merchants have policies against their own security trying to apprehend someone or calling the police while they're still on the premises to avoid the possible damage and bad experiences for their customers. Before I'd say they're more of a victim than Mr Lech, I'd at least want to know what they did to stop him.
bertronic 7y ago
According to coverage by The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-search-an-armed-shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew... “His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out.“ Sounds like his family was under-insured and he took out huge loans to rebuild without any assurances that he would be compensated by the city.
- jmpman 7y ago
  I agree that he was underinsured, but if he were properly insured, I’d expect the insurance company to sue to the police department. The police department should be self insured by the city, which then causes citizen outrage over increased taxes, which then causes politicians to reign in the out of control police force.... at least that’s how the control system should work.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> In fact, the court stated, when police are performing their public safety duties, they cannot be "burdened with the condition" that they pay for property damage. But that sounds completely out of proportion in this case. Is it really that important for the safety of the public to aprehend a man who stole two belts an a shirt from Walmart, that it justifies blowing up someone's house walls and driving an AV through its doors? Isn't responding with such force a bigger threat to the public than letting a shoplifter go? I understand that the man had a gun and barricaded himself to the family's house, but still the response sounds disproportionate and more damaging than anything the shoplifter could have done.
jimueller 7y ago
Before we get all crazy here, he decided to tear down the house on his own. It wasn't blown up. Heavily damaged yes? Salvagable, probably. Insurance game him money. He spent a bunch of money on a bigger new house. It's like getting into a car accident and going to buy a nicer, more expensive car before the insurance comes back. Sure you can do it, but that's on you to pay.
- p_l 7y ago
  It was condemned by the city. It was not salvageable.
HNLurker2 7y ago
It is only just
willart4food 7y ago
How about homeowners' insurance? That should be covered, right?
- gumby 7y ago
  Often excludes official action like the police.
antihero 7y ago
Does insurance not cover this?
- gumby 7y ago
  Only in part as the victim said he spent over 400K restoring he place.
donatj 7y ago
Over two belts stolen from Walmart!? I’d pay for them just to get the police to not pursue.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  the idea would be that the police contact the owner of the building before raiding it, asking if he would be willing to cover for the stolen goods?
gumby 7y ago
There’s an interesting lack of nuance in the decision, perhaps due to the path taken by the plaintiff. We all pay a price for police work (taxes, of course, plus some inconvenience At times). But this ruling says there neeed not be feedback to determine proportionality. Some crimes are not worth addressing. We could put automatic speeeding enforcers in every car, but we don’t. Famously we could eliminate passenger risk on air flights by forcing everybody to fly naked with no hand luggage, strapped to the seats, but people aren’t interested in that much security. Surrender in warfare is a cost/benefit decision. But, particularly in the US, the feedback loops at all levels (determining what’s a crime, what punishment is worth enforcing, which offenses are worth prosecuting, etc) runs open loop, with the obvious result.
wil421 7y ago
I’m sure no one will read that but a Reddit comment pointed out the Homeowners insurance is covering the damages to the house. The guys son was renting the house from his dad and failed to get renters insurance. The sons stuff is not covered. PSA: Always get renters insurance. Flood, fires, vandalism, and I guess police damage can happen.
- funemployed 7y ago
  Came here to say this. Regardless of the specific facts of this case, the purpose of private insurance is to compensate individuals who suffer low-probability events like this through no fault of their own by spreading risk over a large population. If the police/government are responding to a legitimate public safety emergency I don't want them picking and choosing which property to damage based on their potential liability.
telesilla 7y ago
I read this yesterday, it seems apt: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/paw-patrol-mighty-pups-cartoon-canines-in-fascistic-mission-1.3893125 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/paw-patrol-mighty-pu... The central task of the police, according to classical Foucauldian analysis, has been to thwart and foil the possibility of revolution, the possibility of transgressing the order of capital: “For the bourgeoisie the main danger against which it had to be protected, that which had to be avoided at all costs, was armed uprising, was the armed people, was workers taking to the streets in assault against the government.” If protecting citizens isn't the first mandate of the police, then it comes as no surprise at the level of force that can be deemed acceptable as a course of regular action.
- baq 7y ago
  you can watch this in the limit live in Chile as we speak.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  What’s strange to me about America is that if you watch or read crime fiction, it almost always agrees with the Foucaldian analysis. That the police exist to protect the wealthy and that the wealthy themselves are behind most criminal enterprises is beyond a cliche in this genre. But at the same time, if you ask the average “middle class” homeowner (probably the primary consumer of this genre) about their perception of police or something like BLM, they’ll respond with the most naive platitudes and defenses. I understand that identification with and defense of the ruling class is central to contemporary American culture, but I find this constant, screeching dissonance quite fascinating.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Crime fiction is not any kind of a measure of truth in America. It's naïve to even suggest.
    - xkcd-sucks 7y ago
      Crime fiction and television strongly informs the self-image of people working in law enforcement though
paultopia 7y ago
This is bad, but it isn't that surprising. There are some very old cases that are precedent for it, things like (very relevant today) public authorities destroying buildings to serve as a firebreak. Classic case: Surocco v. Geary, from the middle of the 19th century. Those of you who are in SF may recognize the name of the defendant. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-to-mueller/privileges/surocco-v-geary-2/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-...
funemployed 7y ago
When firefighters damage someone's property to create a fire break (like say after an earthquake) should they also compensate that person after the fact?
- einpoklum 7y ago
  Well, the state (or the municipality, or a combination thereof) should compensate in both cases. Which in other words means that "everybody" compensates such a person.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Surely a strange case of overreaction and resultant destructions. But lets not draw enormous conclusions on 'some guys in Denver" or whatever.
seamyb88 7y ago
Being from N. Ireland, and seeing as US cultural imperialism reaches far and I know about all your stuff, police human rights abuse comes from above. We had the brutal RUC until the Good Friday Agreement. Now the police are completely reformed. Sort out the political side and the human rights abusers will no longer be able to work under the conditions.
einpoklum 7y ago
But, but - the house was coming right for them!
spacemanmatt 7y ago
Would the plaintiff have been in the right to defend his property from police abuse? Does the 2nd amendment mean anything at all?
droithomme 7y ago
Him having build a nicer house has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his reasonably asking compensation for the insane amount of damage police irresponsibly did to his house (using military weapons to blowing multiple giant holes in the side of it, rendering it uninhabitable) in the pursuit of some idiot that stole a chinese made tee-shirt worth at most $7. The police posting photos of his new house is disingenuous and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the fact that morally they should compensate him for the destroyed previous house at fair market value. That the law apparently does not require them to do so only means the law is without meaning and deserves only contempt from any rational ethical person.

"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent domain. The district court agreed with the defendants: it concluded that “the tactical decisions that ultimately destroyed [the Lechs’] home were made pursuant to the state’s police powers and not the power of eminent domain.” App. vol. 2, 399. Thus, the district court ruled, the defendants’conduct did not constitute a taking for purposes of the Taking Clause." https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf

visarga 7y ago
It's ok if the police does it.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  Explicitly the opposite of what was said.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    It says that this would not be permissible under eminent domain, but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior. "It's ok if the police does it" is a fair summary.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      > but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior. No, they made no comment on whether that is acceptable. The court case was about "alleging violations of the Takings Clause". The court said that this clause does not apply in this case: - (1) when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking. - (3) any damage to the Lechs’ home therefore fell outside the ambit of the Takings Clause. This does not say anything about it being "ok if the police does it" or even comments on whether it is okay at all. It just says that they sued over the wrong law.
      - jawns 7y ago
        > when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking Isn't that moving the goalposts, though? What this ruling effectively says is that as long as the state doesn't invoke eminent domain to take a citizen's property, then it's not eminent domain, even if the end result is that a citizen's property is taken? I would much prefer a reading of eminent domain that says if a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property, regardless of its justification for doing so, then that's Taking.
        diffeomorphism 7y ago
        I am not sure that is preferable. If "a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property" what does it derive this authority from? If it is from eminent domain it is allowed to do A but must follow rules B. If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case, the first question is not whether it has to follow rules B, but whether it is allowed to do A at all.
        jawns 7y ago
        > If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case My point is that this _is_ eminent domain, because eminent domain should be defined by the action (government taking control of private property) not the purported intention.
rebuilder 7y ago
Yes, it seems important to note this court ruled on whether police actions violated the takings clause, not on, e.g., whether the police were justified in their use of force, or even if the homeowner should be compensated on some other grounds.
- nosianu 7y ago
  What's the point of the law if you can get lost dealing in technicalities at the cost of complete and utter disregard for outcomes? Sure, everybody is technically correct. Loosely reminds of of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_t... -- people getting caught in admiring the cleverness of their arguments and forgetting what the whole original purpose was. Or when some gamers spending more time in the virtual fantasy world then in the real one, solving "challenges" there rather than here.
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    If you go to the court to get a ruling on a specific claim and the court rules on that claim, I don't think you can call that a technicality. Now, why the lawyer recommended this line of action is an interesting question. My uneducated guess would be that there was precedent in favour of the police, and framing it as a constitutional issue was seen to be the best possibility. As a whole, this entire thing sounds insane, of course. But the court did what they were supposed to do, it's the rest of this whole story that is messed up.

bloak 7y ago

There was a similar, though less spectacular, case in the UK, in which the police spent more on lawyers successfully defending the case than it would have cost to compensate the person whose door they had smashed down in the middle of the night because they had incompetently got the wrong address.

Sharlin 7y ago
Establishing precedent is important, especially in common law jurisdictions.
- dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
  Not causing the general public to fear and mistrust the police is even more important.
  - 100100010001 7y ago
    Wouldn’t law enforcement getting away with crimes cause fear? It seems like it would show they are above the law and can act like bullies without repercussions. Admitting a mistake and trying to make it right will gain trust.
    - dbdjfjrjvebd 7y ago
      Yes that is what I was saying.
  - ptah 7y ago
    too late
    - FabHK 7y ago
      Depends on the country.
jalla 7y ago
I wonder how that squares with the Peelian principles, policing by consent, in the UK. Do you have a reference?

lvturner 7y ago

I'm just amazed at how the theft of two belts and a shirt from Walmart escalated to the point where a house blew up. It's like something out of a comedy calamity movie. How common is escalation like this during the course of law enforcement? (I'm hoping this is an extreme case?)

akerro 7y ago
There more extreme cases: >Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-pays-when-dea-destroys-your-vehicle-kills-your-employee-during-botched-sting-hint-not-dea.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-p...
- huffmsa 7y ago
  > The judge points out that Villasana also testified that he was "not aware" of any policy instructing him to notify the vehicle's owner of its potential use in a drug sting operation Ah, ignorance of the law. Fine for them, not for you. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
  - hanlonGetFucked 7y ago
    With the DEA's penchant for "parallel construction" on the table, other ideas enjoy improved probability. If the DEA is often drawing upon unconstitutional sources of information to build constitutional evidence as it constructs cases against organized crime, what does it do with unconstitutional information in all other situations? Answer: whatever it wants. Hanlon's razor must be deemed dull and rusty here, since the posture and stance of the DEA reeks of malice, and parallel construction techniques certainly preclude ignorance, if not incompetence. Maybe the DEA had a clue about why a small time trucker might make for such a useful idiot. Maybe they had a clue about how to lean on someone in just the right way, to march them into suicidal danger. Maybe they knew they were going to walk away from this disaster in the making, before they even approached the guys, and they their hands would stay clean. Maybe they arrived at a decision that they couldn't bring a case against this guy, but they could definitely take his company out of the game, and they decided that they knew enough turn a blind eye to absolutely lethal moral hazards, and hobble a company they disdained. It probably smells like an extrajudicial action because it is.

epistasis 7y ago

> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart. After he left the store, police say, he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun. Eventually, SWAT officers entered the home and apprehended him. ... > The court noted that if police officers "willfully or wantonly" destroy property, they can be sued in a civil tort case. Lech tried to pursue that legal argument in Colorado state court, but he was not successful. Here is the real problem. Eminent domain is clearly not the right strategy. But when a police department is so out of control that they damage a home enough to get it condemned, over a single armed man, and they are not considered to have acted to wantonly destroy property, our society is seriously screwed up. Every day, these sort of toxic over reactions and abuse of power are making people think less and less of police power. Even those that the police do not abuse are starting to believe the "ACAB" line. Police need to start admitting to being able to make mistakes, because when they refuse to admit to any error when they have made obvious errors, they look morally weak and we stop thinking they deserve any of the massive amount of power we see them abuse.

smcl 7y ago
Precisely. The Police are keen to do little "viral" stunts like shooting hoops with kids or buying shoes for homeless guys (ok, fine things to do) ... but when it really comes down to stuff that actually matters - the countless killings and general misery they cause to minorities - they close ranks and put on a united front, and often have the audacity to play the victim. This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get behind their shittiest members, effectively taking collective responsibility for them. I am really not sure what else they expect, really.
- koolba 7y ago
  What’s ACAB?
  - smcl 7y ago
    It stands for "All Cops Are Bastards"
  - 7y ago

huffmsa 7y ago

> 100 officers, 19 hours and a Bearcat APC Man, when you have staff and resources, I guess you need to justify the bills. Instead of, you know, putting a couple units outside the house and waiting a week. Those must have been some expensive belts and shirts. Though there's no way the use of force here is comparable with the value of items being reclaimed.

fluffything 7y ago
Somebody stole 50$ worth of stuff. Instead of letting insurance pay and calling it a day, lest waste a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fully destroy somebody's home for another couple of hundred thousand dollars in damages. What should happen here is that whoever thought this was the right course of action should be fired, and liable.
- SapporoChris 7y ago
  You realize the suspect was firing at police officers? I am in no way defending the destruction of a home. However, I do realize this is not a situation where a couple of officers can be posted outside the home and wait the situation out. An armed suspect firing out of a home is a clear and present danger to the community. edited to add quote Who drives armored cars? People who expect gun-fire. Usually people with some fire-power of their own. -Burn Notice
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    Unless he had one of those drum magazine glocks, he'd have been out of ammo after 15-45 rounds (depending on if he had backup magazines). They could have just parked the APC out front and waited a bit. No need to crash it through the front door.
    - SapporoChris 7y ago
      I agree, no need to destroy the house. But significant activity would be required to secure the neighborhood. There have been instances where innocent bystanders get shot. I've never been shot at, but I suspect there is probably a very aggressive response that humans have to be shot at. A response serves well in most situations, not so much in this one. I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it. My outrage really isn't at the police officers actions, but I understand being outraged about it. My outrage is at the courts. Although I do understand it appears this gentleman may have selected the wrong court.

highprofittrade 7y ago

Another sign of authoritative police state with absolute power over citizens. We allowed this through the people we elected. Shame.

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago

One would assume that if the damaged caused by the police was justifiable, then the responsibility for damage compensation lies with the criminal suspect in the case - and if they're unable to compensate the homeowner then the remainder should come from the municipality or state's general victims' fund. Does Denver or CO have such a fund?

100100010001 7y ago
I wouldn’t qualify using military grade equipment in Colorado for stealing two belts and a shirt justifiable.
- topkai22 7y ago
  It wasn't for a belt and two shirts, it was for attempted murder of police officers. Yes, the interaction might have started with simple shoplifting, but the suspect began firing at police officers. The home was destroyed after a 19 hour stand off with a intoxicated subject who continued to take meth throughout the standoff, during which the suspect continued to fire at police, and after which the suspect was apprehended alive. I'm trying to think of a more justifiable use of force outside of a hostage situation, but I'm having trouble thinking of one. See https://kdvr.com/2015/06/08/greenwood-village-police-standoff-suspect-tried-to-kill-them/ https://kdvr.com/2015/06/08/greenwood-village-police-standof... for a bit more background.
nulbyte 7y ago
Justification of an act does not relieve one from its consequences.

Hoasi 7y ago

> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart. After he left the store, police say, he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun. Eventually, SWAT officers entered the home and apprehended him. So Lech's house was 100% destroyed as a result. Now that is a lot of damage over two stolen belts and a shirt. > In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors. Even if the shoplifter was armed and firing at officers, their response looks slightly disproportionate. The interesting bit here is that they didn't kill him. > The suspect in the case, who was wanted in connection with shoplifting, was taken into custody after a 19-hour standoff. More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident. OK, then. > "As unfair as it may seem, the Takings Clause simply does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense," the appeals court wrote. Yes, it totally reads like a joke. > "There needs to be a line drawn for what police departments can do and what they need to do to compensate citizens for this kind of damage," Lech said. "I didn't want to sue anyone for millions. I just wanted fair market value for my house." That seems reasonable. If the police forces are not responsible, can a case be held against the shoplifter to pay those damages? Not that it would be in any way more realistic given that he is insolvent, but the lawyers should try every route.

ptah 7y ago

Either this is from an 80s cop movie about a renegade cop or it is a scene from a police state. EDIT: This is also a symptom of militarization of police. How would they even have the means to damage a house like this otherwise

koliber 7y ago

If we were to distribute the costs across different parties, how could we do it, and who could be included in this distribution? - The suspect - Mr Lech (owner of damaged property) - Mr Lech's insurance - The police department / other involved agencies / city - The store from which the belt was stolen - Insurance for the store from which the belt was stolen - Individual police officers or superiors who made a call for an excessive reaction I am sure this is not an exhaustive list, but expands it to more than Mr. Lech vs. the police. As a mental exercise, let's sort this list by who should be responsible, using whatever metric. When I do it, Mr. Lech comes out on the bottom, regardless of what I use as the criteria. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can come up with a way where Mr. Lech would be at the top of such a list.

maest 7y ago
Nit: "The store from which the belt was stolen" should probably go under Mr Lech - or at least equivalent.
- koliber 7y ago
  I place it right above Mr. Lech. They were a victim. But they also had a minor amount of [well justified) agency in taking the first steps to create this situation--calling police for minor theft. I am not saying they are wrong in doing so. There are other ways of handling minor theft. Mr. lech was a victim who was completely passive here.
- gmiller123456 7y ago
  I'd disagree. I don't know the policies of this specific store, but most merchants have policies against their own security trying to apprehend someone or calling the police while they're still on the premises to avoid the possible damage and bad experiences for their customers. Before I'd say they're more of a victim than Mr Lech, I'd at least want to know what they did to stop him.

bertronic 7y ago

According to coverage by The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-search-an-armed-shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew... “His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out.“ Sounds like his family was under-insured and he took out huge loans to rebuild without any assurances that he would be compensated by the city.

jmpman 7y ago
I agree that he was underinsured, but if he were properly insured, I’d expect the insurance company to sue to the police department. The police department should be self insured by the city, which then causes citizen outrage over increased taxes, which then causes politicians to reign in the out of control police force.... at least that’s how the control system should work.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> In fact, the court stated, when police are performing their public safety duties, they cannot be "burdened with the condition" that they pay for property damage. But that sounds completely out of proportion in this case. Is it really that important for the safety of the public to aprehend a man who stole two belts an a shirt from Walmart, that it justifies blowing up someone's house walls and driving an AV through its doors? Isn't responding with such force a bigger threat to the public than letting a shoplifter go? I understand that the man had a gun and barricaded himself to the family's house, but still the response sounds disproportionate and more damaging than anything the shoplifter could have done.

jimueller 7y ago

Before we get all crazy here, he decided to tear down the house on his own. It wasn't blown up. Heavily damaged yes? Salvagable, probably. Insurance game him money. He spent a bunch of money on a bigger new house. It's like getting into a car accident and going to buy a nicer, more expensive car before the insurance comes back. Sure you can do it, but that's on you to pay.

p_l 7y ago
It was condemned by the city. It was not salvageable.

HNLurker2 7y ago

It is only just

willart4food 7y ago

How about homeowners' insurance? That should be covered, right?

gumby 7y ago
Often excludes official action like the police.

antihero 7y ago

Does insurance not cover this?

gumby 7y ago
Only in part as the victim said he spent over 400K restoring he place.

donatj 7y ago

Over two belts stolen from Walmart!? I’d pay for them just to get the police to not pursue.

DoctorOetker 7y ago
the idea would be that the police contact the owner of the building before raiding it, asking if he would be willing to cover for the stolen goods?

gumby 7y ago

There’s an interesting lack of nuance in the decision, perhaps due to the path taken by the plaintiff. We all pay a price for police work (taxes, of course, plus some inconvenience At times). But this ruling says there neeed not be feedback to determine proportionality. Some crimes are not worth addressing. We could put automatic speeeding enforcers in every car, but we don’t. Famously we could eliminate passenger risk on air flights by forcing everybody to fly naked with no hand luggage, strapped to the seats, but people aren’t interested in that much security. Surrender in warfare is a cost/benefit decision. But, particularly in the US, the feedback loops at all levels (determining what’s a crime, what punishment is worth enforcing, which offenses are worth prosecuting, etc) runs open loop, with the obvious result.

wil421 7y ago

I’m sure no one will read that but a Reddit comment pointed out the Homeowners insurance is covering the damages to the house. The guys son was renting the house from his dad and failed to get renters insurance. The sons stuff is not covered. PSA: Always get renters insurance. Flood, fires, vandalism, and I guess police damage can happen.

funemployed 7y ago
Came here to say this. Regardless of the specific facts of this case, the purpose of private insurance is to compensate individuals who suffer low-probability events like this through no fault of their own by spreading risk over a large population. If the police/government are responding to a legitimate public safety emergency I don't want them picking and choosing which property to damage based on their potential liability.

telesilla 7y ago

I read this yesterday, it seems apt: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/paw-patrol-mighty-pups-cartoon-canines-in-fascistic-mission-1.3893125 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/paw-patrol-mighty-pu... The central task of the police, according to classical Foucauldian analysis, has been to thwart and foil the possibility of revolution, the possibility of transgressing the order of capital: “For the bourgeoisie the main danger against which it had to be protected, that which had to be avoided at all costs, was armed uprising, was the armed people, was workers taking to the streets in assault against the government.” If protecting citizens isn't the first mandate of the police, then it comes as no surprise at the level of force that can be deemed acceptable as a course of regular action.

baq 7y ago
you can watch this in the limit live in Chile as we speak.
claudeganon 7y ago
What’s strange to me about America is that if you watch or read crime fiction, it almost always agrees with the Foucaldian analysis. That the police exist to protect the wealthy and that the wealthy themselves are behind most criminal enterprises is beyond a cliche in this genre. But at the same time, if you ask the average “middle class” homeowner (probably the primary consumer of this genre) about their perception of police or something like BLM, they’ll respond with the most naive platitudes and defenses. I understand that identification with and defense of the ruling class is central to contemporary American culture, but I find this constant, screeching dissonance quite fascinating.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Crime fiction is not any kind of a measure of truth in America. It's naïve to even suggest.
  - xkcd-sucks 7y ago
    Crime fiction and television strongly informs the self-image of people working in law enforcement though

paultopia 7y ago

This is bad, but it isn't that surprising. There are some very old cases that are precedent for it, things like (very relevant today) public authorities destroying buildings to serve as a firebreak. Classic case: Surocco v. Geary, from the middle of the 19th century. Those of you who are in SF may recognize the name of the defendant. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-to-mueller/privileges/surocco-v-geary-2/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-...

funemployed 7y ago

When firefighters damage someone's property to create a fire break (like say after an earthquake) should they also compensate that person after the fact?

einpoklum 7y ago
Well, the state (or the municipality, or a combination thereof) should compensate in both cases. Which in other words means that "everybody" compensates such a person.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Surely a strange case of overreaction and resultant destructions. But lets not draw enormous conclusions on 'some guys in Denver" or whatever.

seamyb88 7y ago

Being from N. Ireland, and seeing as US cultural imperialism reaches far and I know about all your stuff, police human rights abuse comes from above. We had the brutal RUC until the Good Friday Agreement. Now the police are completely reformed. Sort out the political side and the human rights abusers will no longer be able to work under the conditions.

einpoklum 7y ago

But, but - the house was coming right for them!

spacemanmatt 7y ago

Would the plaintiff have been in the right to defend his property from police abuse? Does the 2nd amendment mean anything at all?

droithomme 7y ago

Him having build a nicer house has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his reasonably asking compensation for the insane amount of damage police irresponsibly did to his house (using military weapons to blowing multiple giant holes in the side of it, rendering it uninhabitable) in the pursuit of some idiot that stole a chinese made tee-shirt worth at most $7. The police posting photos of his new house is disingenuous and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the fact that morally they should compensate him for the destroyed previous house at fair market value. That the law apparently does not require them to do so only means the law is without meaning and deserves only contempt from any rational ethical person.