This assertion stood out the most to me and shows how much of our court system is utter bullshit: > As a reminder, Hadley urges us to hold that: “innocent hom

This assertion stood out the most to me and shows how much of our court system is utter bullshit: > As a reminder, Hadley urges us to hold that: “innocent homeowner[s] with no connection to the sought-after sus- pect[,] whose property the [government] intentionally and se- verely damage[s] through a military-style assault … to exe- cute a warrant to apprehend [a] suspect … when the property otherwise would not have been damaged” are owed compen- sation. > Mindful of our decisions’ precedential effect on future cases, we have concerns about the administrability of Had- ley’s proposed holding. It raises difficult questions, not least of which is, how does one determine innocence? For example, must an ancillary criminal proceeding conclude to show in- nocence before proceeding with a takings claim? Does having “no connection” with a suspect—as Hadley asserted herself— render the landowner “innocent”? Like come on, this seems like a nonsensical rebuttal. We know she was innocent and that the police wrongfully raided the wrong home. Our court system is supposed to be built on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. The judge argued that she should've instead brought a case against the police to try and surmount the qualified immunity defense but they're just kicking the ball down another losing court decision.