An armed shoplifting suspect in Colorado barricaded himself in a stranger's suburban Denver home in June 2015. 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.
After an hours-long siege, the home was left with shredded walls and blown-out windows. In some parts of the interior, the wood framing was exposed amid a mountain of debris.
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
"Under no circumstances in this country should the government be able to blow up your house and render a family homeless," Leo Lech, the house's owner, told NPR. "This family was thrown out into the street without any recourse."
Lawyers for Lech argued that the police's destruction of his home was a violation of the Constitution's Takings Clause, which says private property cannot be taken for public use without "just compensation." But the problem with that argument, the appeals court ruled, is that courts have long held that police cannot be on the hook for property damage caused in the process of trying to make an arrest.
"As unfair as it may seem, the Takings Clause simply does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense," the appeals court wrote.
......
The city of Greenwood Village condemned Lech's home. It was completely razed to a vacant lot, and Lech said he has spent around $400,000 rebuilding it — not to mention the $28,000 in legal fees he also incurred as he pursued compensation from the city and police.
City officials paid Lech's family $5,000 in compensation, a sum that Lech's lawyer deemed "unconscionable."
......
The case turns on legal technicalities about whether police acting in their official capacity can ever be seen as exerting eminent domain — when the government seizes private property for public use.
The appeals court, affirming the lower court, ruled that police attempting to make an arrest cannot be considered eminent domain, even when a property is severely damaged.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks