Is law enforcement responsible for damages made by a search warrant?Are there any remedies for abusive or insulting behavior by agents executing a search warrant?Is there any remedy for unnecessary insult by police in the course of their lawful duties?Is homeowner liable for police injury during raidCan I booby-trap my property against police?Consequence for injury of child trespasserAre there standards for detention of property in connection with a search warrant?Is stolen property being seen on my property grounds for a search warrant?Is a commercial landlord liable for damage due to roof leaks?Does disordely conduct apply when on private property?How do free-speech protections in the United States apply in public to corporate misrepresentations?
Why does this Jet Provost strikemaster have a textured leading edge?
How does the Moon's gravity affect Earth's oceans despite Earth's stronger gravitational pull?
Bringing Power Supplies on Plane?
When was "Fredo" an insult to Italian-Americans?
Partitioning and sorting even and odd numbers within an array
What should I do if actually I found a serious flaw in someone's PhD thesis and an article derived from that PhD thesis?
Weird resistor with dots around it on the schematic
Is the Microsoft recommendation to use C# properties applicable to game development?
How much can I judge a company based on a phone screening?
Output the list of musical notes
How can I find an old paper when the usual methods fail?
What's a good pattern to calculate a variable only when it is used the first time?
Locked room poison mystery!
What evidence points to a long ō in the first syllable of nōscō's present-tense form?
Would the USA be eligible to join the European Union?
Number in overlapping range
The more + the + comparative degree
What's the point of writing that I know will never be used or read?
Telephone number in spoken words
How to get locks that are keyed alike?
Is Thieves' Cant a language?
Is there a word for returning to unpreparedness?
What was the intention with the Commodore 128?
Build a mob of suspiciously happy lenny faces ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Is law enforcement responsible for damages made by a search warrant?
Are there any remedies for abusive or insulting behavior by agents executing a search warrant?Is there any remedy for unnecessary insult by police in the course of their lawful duties?Is homeowner liable for police injury during raidCan I booby-trap my property against police?Consequence for injury of child trespasserAre there standards for detention of property in connection with a search warrant?Is stolen property being seen on my property grounds for a search warrant?Is a commercial landlord liable for damage due to roof leaks?Does disordely conduct apply when on private property?How do free-speech protections in the United States apply in public to corporate misrepresentations?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Why do police use a battering ram without first checking the doorknob on a low threat warrant? What if a small child was on the other side of the door and got seriously injured by the battering ram? The door and frame is likely to be damaged and may cost hundreds of dollars to replace but there is a small chance someone could also get injured.
I have seen where the landlord will let police in with a search warrant with 0 damage but in other cases they can devastate the house breaking and rummaging with a near 0 regard the property and tenants personal items.
Can the landlord sue for damages? Are police above criminal law for destruction of property in this matter when they don't at least try the unlocked door?
I understand that some damages in court could be argued as previous damage or damages needed for entry but what if you can prove it was intentional and unwarranted with no reason?
united-states criminal-law rental-property damages malpractice
add a comment |
Why do police use a battering ram without first checking the doorknob on a low threat warrant? What if a small child was on the other side of the door and got seriously injured by the battering ram? The door and frame is likely to be damaged and may cost hundreds of dollars to replace but there is a small chance someone could also get injured.
I have seen where the landlord will let police in with a search warrant with 0 damage but in other cases they can devastate the house breaking and rummaging with a near 0 regard the property and tenants personal items.
Can the landlord sue for damages? Are police above criminal law for destruction of property in this matter when they don't at least try the unlocked door?
I understand that some damages in court could be argued as previous damage or damages needed for entry but what if you can prove it was intentional and unwarranted with no reason?
united-states criminal-law rental-property damages malpractice
1
Not only are they above criminal law, they're above civil law for all reasonable purposes.
– chrylis
Aug 4 at 6:35
add a comment |
Why do police use a battering ram without first checking the doorknob on a low threat warrant? What if a small child was on the other side of the door and got seriously injured by the battering ram? The door and frame is likely to be damaged and may cost hundreds of dollars to replace but there is a small chance someone could also get injured.
I have seen where the landlord will let police in with a search warrant with 0 damage but in other cases they can devastate the house breaking and rummaging with a near 0 regard the property and tenants personal items.
Can the landlord sue for damages? Are police above criminal law for destruction of property in this matter when they don't at least try the unlocked door?
I understand that some damages in court could be argued as previous damage or damages needed for entry but what if you can prove it was intentional and unwarranted with no reason?
united-states criminal-law rental-property damages malpractice
Why do police use a battering ram without first checking the doorknob on a low threat warrant? What if a small child was on the other side of the door and got seriously injured by the battering ram? The door and frame is likely to be damaged and may cost hundreds of dollars to replace but there is a small chance someone could also get injured.
I have seen where the landlord will let police in with a search warrant with 0 damage but in other cases they can devastate the house breaking and rummaging with a near 0 regard the property and tenants personal items.
Can the landlord sue for damages? Are police above criminal law for destruction of property in this matter when they don't at least try the unlocked door?
I understand that some damages in court could be argued as previous damage or damages needed for entry but what if you can prove it was intentional and unwarranted with no reason?
united-states criminal-law rental-property damages malpractice
united-states criminal-law rental-property damages malpractice
edited Aug 4 at 17:28
Muze the good Troll.
asked Aug 3 at 19:52
Muze the good Troll.Muze the good Troll.
1
1
1
Not only are they above criminal law, they're above civil law for all reasonable purposes.
– chrylis
Aug 4 at 6:35
add a comment |
1
Not only are they above criminal law, they're above civil law for all reasonable purposes.
– chrylis
Aug 4 at 6:35
1
1
Not only are they above criminal law, they're above civil law for all reasonable purposes.
– chrylis
Aug 4 at 6:35
Not only are they above criminal law, they're above civil law for all reasonable purposes.
– chrylis
Aug 4 at 6:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the search or seizure itself is reasonable (either because there is a warrant, or because they had probable cause), they can take appropriately destructive measures to carry out their duty. Even if the search or seizure is later found to have been unreasonable, an officer may still have Qualified Immunity unless their action violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald). However, a search/seizure doesn't give the police license for arbitrary destruction, whatever they do has to be reasonably pursuant to the legal search/seizure. For example, if a suspect is barricaded in a house with a gun, they can knock down doors, windows and walls to apprehend them. On the other hand, that does not mean the officers can then break open safes to try and find evidence - once their probable cause for the entry is fulfilled (apprehending the suspect), they need to get a warrant to do more than a plain sight search of the house. Warrants will specify what items are being searched for, so even with a warrant the police have to take reasonable measures to carry it out - an example of an unreasonable measure would be to tear into walls in order to try and find a stolen bicycle. On the other hand, tearing into walls could be justified if their warrant included searching for drugs from a dealer, where it is not uncommon to hide them in the walls.
States and the Federal Government enjoy Sovereign Immunity from suits in most cases. There are some exceptions, but none would apply in this case so long as the general policy of the police department was not illegal or unconstitutional. However, county and city governments do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity and state governments and the Federal Government often allow suits against them for negligence from their actors, so someone injured by unreasonable police action can usually try to recover damages from the officer's department.
8
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
12
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
3
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
2
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
12
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43403%2fis-law-enforcement-responsible-for-damages-made-by-a-search-warrant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the search or seizure itself is reasonable (either because there is a warrant, or because they had probable cause), they can take appropriately destructive measures to carry out their duty. Even if the search or seizure is later found to have been unreasonable, an officer may still have Qualified Immunity unless their action violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald). However, a search/seizure doesn't give the police license for arbitrary destruction, whatever they do has to be reasonably pursuant to the legal search/seizure. For example, if a suspect is barricaded in a house with a gun, they can knock down doors, windows and walls to apprehend them. On the other hand, that does not mean the officers can then break open safes to try and find evidence - once their probable cause for the entry is fulfilled (apprehending the suspect), they need to get a warrant to do more than a plain sight search of the house. Warrants will specify what items are being searched for, so even with a warrant the police have to take reasonable measures to carry it out - an example of an unreasonable measure would be to tear into walls in order to try and find a stolen bicycle. On the other hand, tearing into walls could be justified if their warrant included searching for drugs from a dealer, where it is not uncommon to hide them in the walls.
States and the Federal Government enjoy Sovereign Immunity from suits in most cases. There are some exceptions, but none would apply in this case so long as the general policy of the police department was not illegal or unconstitutional. However, county and city governments do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity and state governments and the Federal Government often allow suits against them for negligence from their actors, so someone injured by unreasonable police action can usually try to recover damages from the officer's department.
8
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
12
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
3
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
2
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
12
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
|
show 6 more comments
The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the search or seizure itself is reasonable (either because there is a warrant, or because they had probable cause), they can take appropriately destructive measures to carry out their duty. Even if the search or seizure is later found to have been unreasonable, an officer may still have Qualified Immunity unless their action violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald). However, a search/seizure doesn't give the police license for arbitrary destruction, whatever they do has to be reasonably pursuant to the legal search/seizure. For example, if a suspect is barricaded in a house with a gun, they can knock down doors, windows and walls to apprehend them. On the other hand, that does not mean the officers can then break open safes to try and find evidence - once their probable cause for the entry is fulfilled (apprehending the suspect), they need to get a warrant to do more than a plain sight search of the house. Warrants will specify what items are being searched for, so even with a warrant the police have to take reasonable measures to carry it out - an example of an unreasonable measure would be to tear into walls in order to try and find a stolen bicycle. On the other hand, tearing into walls could be justified if their warrant included searching for drugs from a dealer, where it is not uncommon to hide them in the walls.
States and the Federal Government enjoy Sovereign Immunity from suits in most cases. There are some exceptions, but none would apply in this case so long as the general policy of the police department was not illegal or unconstitutional. However, county and city governments do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity and state governments and the Federal Government often allow suits against them for negligence from their actors, so someone injured by unreasonable police action can usually try to recover damages from the officer's department.
8
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
12
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
3
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
2
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
12
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
|
show 6 more comments
The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the search or seizure itself is reasonable (either because there is a warrant, or because they had probable cause), they can take appropriately destructive measures to carry out their duty. Even if the search or seizure is later found to have been unreasonable, an officer may still have Qualified Immunity unless their action violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald). However, a search/seizure doesn't give the police license for arbitrary destruction, whatever they do has to be reasonably pursuant to the legal search/seizure. For example, if a suspect is barricaded in a house with a gun, they can knock down doors, windows and walls to apprehend them. On the other hand, that does not mean the officers can then break open safes to try and find evidence - once their probable cause for the entry is fulfilled (apprehending the suspect), they need to get a warrant to do more than a plain sight search of the house. Warrants will specify what items are being searched for, so even with a warrant the police have to take reasonable measures to carry it out - an example of an unreasonable measure would be to tear into walls in order to try and find a stolen bicycle. On the other hand, tearing into walls could be justified if their warrant included searching for drugs from a dealer, where it is not uncommon to hide them in the walls.
States and the Federal Government enjoy Sovereign Immunity from suits in most cases. There are some exceptions, but none would apply in this case so long as the general policy of the police department was not illegal or unconstitutional. However, county and city governments do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity and state governments and the Federal Government often allow suits against them for negligence from their actors, so someone injured by unreasonable police action can usually try to recover damages from the officer's department.
The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the search or seizure itself is reasonable (either because there is a warrant, or because they had probable cause), they can take appropriately destructive measures to carry out their duty. Even if the search or seizure is later found to have been unreasonable, an officer may still have Qualified Immunity unless their action violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald). However, a search/seizure doesn't give the police license for arbitrary destruction, whatever they do has to be reasonably pursuant to the legal search/seizure. For example, if a suspect is barricaded in a house with a gun, they can knock down doors, windows and walls to apprehend them. On the other hand, that does not mean the officers can then break open safes to try and find evidence - once their probable cause for the entry is fulfilled (apprehending the suspect), they need to get a warrant to do more than a plain sight search of the house. Warrants will specify what items are being searched for, so even with a warrant the police have to take reasonable measures to carry it out - an example of an unreasonable measure would be to tear into walls in order to try and find a stolen bicycle. On the other hand, tearing into walls could be justified if their warrant included searching for drugs from a dealer, where it is not uncommon to hide them in the walls.
States and the Federal Government enjoy Sovereign Immunity from suits in most cases. There are some exceptions, but none would apply in this case so long as the general policy of the police department was not illegal or unconstitutional. However, county and city governments do not enjoy Sovereign Immunity and state governments and the Federal Government often allow suits against them for negligence from their actors, so someone injured by unreasonable police action can usually try to recover damages from the officer's department.
edited Aug 4 at 12:08
answered Aug 3 at 21:02
IllusiveBrianIllusiveBrian
1,1726 silver badges12 bronze badges
1,1726 silver badges12 bronze badges
8
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
12
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
3
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
2
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
12
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
|
show 6 more comments
8
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
12
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
3
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
2
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
12
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
8
8
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
What about a child or dog being injured from the battering ram?
– Muze the good Troll.
Aug 3 at 21:58
12
12
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
@Muze You haven't seen all the stories with police breaking into a home and shooting someone's child dead, then getting paid leave for a few months before returning to the job like nothing happened?
– forest
Aug 4 at 6:31
3
3
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
"Qualified immunity" in practice means that the police officer has immunity unless their act has specifically been found to be illegal in a court previously. cato.org/blog/…. This gave the police pretty much carte blanche for some pretty egregious behaviour e.g. techdirt.com/articles/20190321/07364341841/…. The number of legal precedents is increasing, so its becoming more likely that plaintiffs can find something, but its still pretty bad.
– Paul Johnson
Aug 4 at 9:51
2
2
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
@Muze Whether or not someone is "low threat," if the target of a warrant won't unlock their door officers are going to be justified in breaking it down. They may choose not to, but they also don't want the alternative of having to siege a person's house. The police are expected to (and I think in the vast majority of cases do) make a good faith effort to avoid injury while they are carrying out their duties, but all police interactions can turn deadly for either side, and even someone who is "low threat" can behave like a cornered animal, so the police have to be prepared for that.
– IllusiveBrian
Aug 4 at 12:24
12
12
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
Doesn't this "qualified immunity" only mean that the claimants cannot directly sue the police officer personally? They can still sue the police department / the city / the government and get compensation for damages from the city itself. And the police officers might get scolded (or their bonuses cut) by their chief, but that's not in the control of the claimant.
– vsz
Aug 4 at 13:05
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43403%2fis-law-enforcement-responsible-for-damages-made-by-a-search-warrant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Not only are they above criminal law, they're above civil law for all reasonable purposes.
– chrylis
Aug 4 at 6:35