Mistaken Police Raids and Legal Liability

In an ongoing story that dates back to June of 2022, an Indiana woman, whose home suffered excessive damage during a police raid, is not legally entitled to compensation, as recently ruled by a federal legal panel. I have no problem with this, assuming… that the raided house is the correct house, which it was not.

Amy Hadley’s then 15-year-old son, Noah, was the only one present at the time of the raid. The son was handcuffed and transported to the police station even after officers admitted, on body-cam footage, that he was clearly not the suspect being searched for.

Police believed that the suspect in a nearby shooting, had been hiding out in the home. They based this on a mistaken IP address via Facebook. As a result, the police smashed windows, used 30 tear gas canisters, ransacked furniture, destroyed security cameras, ripped down a panel and a fan, and punched holes in the walls. Can you say, overkill?

Thirty gas canisters? Seriously? Ransacked furniture? Really? Did they think he was hiding in the sofa cushions? How small and skinny was this guy? Even the vertically-challenged can’t hide inside of a security camera or behind a home fan. In addition, if the shooting just happened, I don’t think the guy had time to panel himself inside of what was likely a standard 2x4 studded wall.

Despite the grievous error and on-site idiocy, the government refused to compensate her for the $16,000 worth of damages. Insurance was of no help because most insurance policies explicitly refuse to reimburse damage caused by the government. As a result, she sued based on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states government cannot take private property without providing "just compensation". I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that to be the incorrect basis for the lawsuit. There was no “taking”, just destruction.

The Fifth Amendment supposedly does not require the state to compensate for property damage resulting from police executing a lawful search warrant. Okay, I can support that… assuming one has the correct house. The fact that they had the wrong house proves at least some level of negligence, further supported by the things they destroyed for which no criminal could have hid behind… or in. Some experts suggested she should have used the Fourth Amendment for improperly executing a search warrant. How about wanton destruction of property?

The Supreme Court has generally declined to weigh in on such decisions in the past due to the importance of public safety. However, two justices, Sotomayor and Gorsuch, signaled they may consider the issue in the future.

This all goes back to qualified immunity, which pretty much allows “authorities” to do whatever they want without fear of being sued, or having to be correct in their actions. While some level of immunity needs to exist, the level that exists today leans far too much on the side of government while ignoring the private citizen. Enough with the irresponsible authoritarian actions.

Source used: Institute for Justice

[If you would like to support my blog writing, please visit: "Buy Me A Coffee"]