[LordAnderson]

TLDW is that a guy holed up in an unoccupied house. Cops spent hours trying to get him out and did about 70K worth of property damage. City told her it wasn’t their problem, home owners insurance denied the claim.

So instead of attempting to sue the city for the damage they caused, they framed it as the city “taking” her property for public hood and thus, she is entitled to compensation.

The city appealed but this might lead to some policy changes if the city is on the hook for the damage the PD does to a 3rd party’s property.

 

[CAcop]

The case law says its not the city or police department that is liable. Only the criminal does. Sue him. They aren't because he doesn't have any money.

The homeowner might get really sad when they take his house since it's eminent domain.

 

[MarkCO]

The case law says its not the city

Not case law, legislative law. Big difference. Constitutional case law is kind of a thing. They took her property without due process or compensation. So, we could call it theft. Just because you are a cop does not mean you have to support a bad legislative law. 😎

 

[Slackinoff]

Wow…..what a crazy situation. Very interesting points on both sides. That “gov action”exclusion is common on TX home owner policies, along with “acts of war” and “nuclear” exclusions.

 

[MarkCO]

FWIW, we had one, very similar, in my home city about 4 years ago. Trashed the house, city declared it un-safe and ordered the rest of it torn down the next day. The criminal was a tenant, who rented a room from the owner. If I recall, insurance, city, state and red cross all agreed to kick in and her home was rebuilt.

As a taxpayer, I'm fine with LE damaging property to get a criminal, but we should pay to repair that damage.

The list of the .gov pays for that they shouldn't is long, but this ain't one IMHO.

 

[CAcop]

Not case law, legislative law. Big difference. Constitutional case law is kind of a thing. They took her property without due process or compensation. So, we could call it theft. Just because you are a cop does not mean you have to support a bad legislative law. 😎

We had some guys shoot up a guy who murdered 2 of our cops. The suspect happened to be running in front of a series of garages in am apartment complex. A bunch of stuff got shot with pass through and the difficulty of shooting someone on the run.

Our city paid out the damages but noted they did not have to pay per case law. Not statutory law but case law. Judges interpreted the law as such.

This person is either not going to get paid or they will and the city will own the house.

 

[MarkCO]

This person is either not going to get paid or they will and the city will own the house.

Wrong and inaccurate. Thankfully you don't get to decide.

 

[Bren]

We get sued for stuff like this all the time. The problem for the city and this lame report, is that cities don't have sovereign immunity. Also sovereign immunity is NOT sometimes called "qualified immunity." Those are two completely different things that are unrelated (i.e., an officer working for a department that doesn't have sovereign immunity can still have qualified immunity and a city can never have qualified immunity). Also, claiming the destruction of your property was a "taking" usually fails because the government has to have taken your property for the purpose of converting it to public property for public use, to be a "taking."

In short, any time you watch/read news about law you are getting nonsense from people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Prison inmates can explain law better than reporters.

For example, what the video describes them actually winning on is an argument that the homeowner's was denied due process, not an argument under the "takings" clause of the constitution, and if cities had "sovereign immunity" that decision wouldn't have been made at all. This same lawsuit, if it had been filed against the county, rather than the city, would have been instantly dismissed, because counties do have sovereign immunity.

Her attorney. Redfern, explains it with a mishmash of legal words that don't fit together, which is pretty typical for plaintiff's attorneys. He even refers to 5th Amendment due process, which only applies if the feds broke your house - it is 14th Amendment due process when a city does it. Plaintiffs' attorneys bumble through life throwing out everything they can think of to see if somebody who knows more than them can find a part that sticks - in most cases they go broke and have to get real jobs.