Qualified Immunity

Does Letting Police Enter Your House Give Them Permission To Wreck It?

The Institute for Justice asks the Supreme Court to clarify a doctrine that shields cops from responsibility for outrageous conduct.

|

When Shaniz West agreed to let police enter her house so they could arrest her former boyfriend, she had no idea she was consenting to a barrage of tear gas grenades that would smash her windows, tear holes in her walls and ceiling, and leave a sticky, noxious residue on her food, furniture, electronics, and clothing. But after she sued for damages, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said the officers responsible for making her home uninhabitable were shielded from liability because it was not "clearly established" at the time that such a wanton destruction of property violated the Fourth Amendment.

In a petition filed today, the Institute for Justice urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision and in the process clarify the doctrine of "qualified immunity," which in many cases lets police off the hook for outrageous conduct when their victims are unable to identify prior rulings involving similar facts. That understanding of the doctrine effectively immunizes officers who find novel ways to violate people's constitutional rights.

The case began on a Wednesday afternoon in August 2014, when West returned to her home in Caldwell, Idaho, and encountered four local police officers. They were looking for her ex-boyfriend, Fabian Salinas, a gang member wanted for several violent crimes. West said Salinas had been in the house earlier that day, collecting his belongings, and she was not sure whether he was still there. It turned out he wasn't, but the cops did not realize that until after they had wreaked havoc on West's home.

After intimating that West might be arrested for harboring a fugitive, Officer Matthew Richardon asked, "Do we have permission to get inside your house and apprehend him?" West nodded, handed over the key to her front door, and left with a friend who came to pick her up. Instead of entering the house, Sgt. Joe Hoadley summoned a SWAT team, which hatched a three-stage plan of attack that included "us[ing] 12-gauge shotguns to inject tear gas into the house through the windows and the garage door," as two members of a three-judge 9th Circuit panel described it.

Dissenting Judge Marsha Berzon's description better reflects the reality of what happened. "SWAT used a 12-gauge shotgun to shoot tear gas canisters into the home, breaking windows and extensively damaging the walls and ceiling in the process," she wrote. "West's personal belongings and the home itself were saturated in tear gas; broken glass littered the floor; and the walls and ceiling had gaping holes from contact with the tear gas canisters. In the aftermath of the destruction, West and her children could not live in their home for several months."

The majority nevertheless concluded that, even if the operation exceeded the scope of West's consent, case law had not clearly established that point. "Our research has uncovered no controlling Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit decision holding that 'an officer acting under similar circumstances as [Defendants]…violated the Fourth
Amendment,'" wrote Judge Susan Graber in a 2019 opinion joined by Judge Eduardo  Robreno. "Prior precedent must articulate 'a constitutional rule specific enough to alert these [officers] in this case that their particular conduct was unlawful.'"

Judge Berzon suggested that "the likely reason there are no closely similar cases standing for the proposition that officers may not use a general consent to search to take actions that render a home uninhabitable for months is that law enforcement officers well understand that, and do not rely on consent alone to conduct home-destructive activities." Instead of asking whether any federal court had ever declared such an operation unconstitutional, she said, her colleagues should have deemed it telling that no federal court has ever said anything like it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The majority suggested that the Caldwell officers might reasonably have believed West's permission to enter her house included permission to wreck it. "Plaintiff agreed that officers could 'get inside [her] house and apprehend' Salinas," Graber wrote. "Defendants did 'get inside' Plaintiff's house, first with objects and later with people. Plaintiff never expressed a limitation as to time, place within the house, or manner of entry."

Berzon treated that risible argument, which she said "borders on the fantastic," with the scorn it deserved:

West's consent quite obviously contemplated an entry by live human beings, not the tossing of incendiary objects into the house from the outside….The majority adopts an entirely implausible contrary reading of West's consent…Because West "never expressed a limitation as to time, place within the house, or manner of entry," the majority concludes that her consent that officers could "get inside" permitted a violent initial attack on her house with toxic objects. In so concluding, the majority supposes that someone who permits law enforcement officers to "get inside [her] house" while handing over a key consents to the officers not entering the house but instead lobbing dangerous objects, such as tear gas canisters—or stones or bombs, for other examples—into the house from the outside. It further presupposes that, in providing consent to entry, a resident must preemptively forbid actions no one would guess are contemplated by the commonsense understanding of the articulated consent. That is not the law.

In Berzon's view, "interpreting the exchange between West and Officer Richardson as permitting the SWAT attack on West's house as performed is patently unreasonable." Based on principles established in prior cases, she said, "it is clear that extensive property destruction rendering a home uninhabitable goes beyond the limitations inherent in a general consent to search." Hence "any reasonable officer would have known at the time that the search exceeded the scope of West's consent."

The 9th Circuit's decision not only shields the officers involved in this particular incident from liability. It also invites other officers to do the same sort of thing in the future, since the court never actually says whether the Caldwell cops violated the Fourth Amendment. As 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett has noted, the practice of affirming qualified immunity without resolving the underlying constitutional issue creates a "Catch-22," because "plaintiffs must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent," and "important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered."

In its petition, the Institute for Justice argues that West's case is "an ideal vehicle" for resolving a split between appeals courts that agree with Graber's approach to qualified immunity, requiring precedents with facts that closely resemble those of the current case, and appeals courts that favor Berzon's approach, which asks whether police conduct violates well-established constitutional principles even if no court has ever considered anything exactly like it before. "'Courts of appeals are divided—intractably—over precisely what degree of factual similarity must exist' to defeat qualified immunity," the petition notes, quoting a 2019 opinion by Willett. "The split presented by this case is emblematic of a broader disagreement about what constitutes 'clearly established' law for purposes of qualified immunity."

This case is part of a broader Institute for Justice project aimed at getting the Supreme Court to reconsider qualified immunity, an arguably unlawful doctrine it invented in 1982. The Court's application of qualified immunity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in a 2018 dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "tells officers that they can shoot first and think later." Justice Clarence Thomas, who does not agree with Sotomayor and Ginsburg about much else, also has urged his colleagues to reconsider the Court's approach.

"Qualified immunity means that government officials can get away with violating your rights as long as they violate them in a way nobody thought of before," says Institute for Justice attorney Joshua Windham. "Government officials are not above the law, and if citizens must follow the law, the government must follow the Constitution. That includes being held accountable for violating it."

NEXT: Is Farm-Free Food the Future?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “…using 12 gauge shotguns to inject tear gas…”

    That just sounds like the wrong tool for that application.

    1. These were gas grenades launched into the house using the pressure of a blank round in a firearm. Despite generally being called “rifle” grenades, they are actually designed to be fired from the end of a shotgun in almost all cases. And since 12 gauge shotguns are the most common, that is the standard design for the grenade fitting.

      The alternate design is a dedicated grenade launcher such as the M79. Perhaps this township’s SWAT team didn’t have one?

    2. 12 gauge shotgun ammunition comes in a variety of styles.

      For departments who cannot afford dedicated gas grenade launchers, a shotgun muzzle grenade cup and 12ga blanks are a cheap substitute.

      There are 12ga shotgun line-throwing attachments for launching towlines to a boat in distress.

      12 gauge shotgun can be the right tool for a number of applications.

    3. Yep, totally unnecessary

  2. Legal commentators should begin referring to Qualified Immunity as, “the Costanza rule” with the goal of getting the term to stick.

    1. Is that wrong? Should I not have done that?

  3. Is there any precedent for showing a violation of civil rights in beating the shit out of a judge?

    1. Are you a cop? If so, then you’re good to go, see Thomas Raffaele.

      1. Exactly – This case really stinks of nepotism or the prosecution just didn’t file the correct indictment charges.. Only a ‘COP’ could dismiss/void laws against private property damage and restitution with some bogus “consent to entry” being equivalent to granting a demolition project.

        The descending judge writes this out well.
        “It further presupposes that, in providing consent to entry, a resident must preemptively forbid actions no one would guess are contemplated by the commonsense understanding of the articulated consent. That is not the law.”

  4. F Y T W !

  5. Serious question: is the position of SCOTUS seriously that without a prior case showing that something is disallowed, QI holds? Does that imply that there can be no new cases, since any new case will fail to have a similar case in the past, and therefore fail to enter QI precedent?

    1. Pretty much. There have been some common sense rejections of QI, but there have also been some amazingly similar cases which still get ruled as different enough to confirm QI.

    2. 1. Yes. That is the stance of the USSC.

      2. Not quite. See, the court can judge that something the officer’s did violated someone’s rights – that sets the precedent for the *next time* it happens. The original officers get a pass but the next guys to do it don’t.

      3. Unless, in this case, the court punts by saying ‘qualified immunity!’ and then uses that as an excuse to not rule on the legality of the underlying activity. If *that* keeps being allowed then yeah, there’ll be no more precedents set.

      1. The problem is that even if a judge says some conduct is not allowed going forward, the bad guys can argue that this time the facts are different. And as long as the facts are just different enough to let the judge write some kind of garbage opinion, it’ll work.

        1. “The court said last time that Officer Joe Martin raping Mrs. Helen Ferguson on her kitchen floor on April 4, 2012 would be a violation next time, but this car involved Officer Joe Martin raping Mrs. Helen Ferguson on her kitchen floor on February 7, 2020, which is clearly a new precedent.”

    3. The language is, I beleive, “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.” so in theory, if it is unreasonable to think it does not violate a statute or a constitutional right, it would not be covered by QI. In practice though, most police/courts take the view that the government can do anything it wants so long as it is not expressly forbidden. See the absurdly narrow readings of the 10th amendment for example.

      1. Remember, the SCOTUS also ruled that cops can’t be punished for arresting you for criminal behavior that isn’t actually criminal, so long as they think it’s criminal.

        See police arresting folks for broken tail-lights in states where that isn’t a crime, police in Louisiana and Virginia arresting men for consensual adult sodomy in the privacy in their own homes after Lawrence v. Texas, and police everywhere inventing after-the-fact justifications for their bad behavior because they were sure the person was guilty of something.

  6. it was not “clearly established” at the time that such a wanton destruction of property violated the Fourth Amendment.

    Hey, court. Guess what your job is.

    1. it was not “clearly established” at the time that such a wanton destruction of property violated the Fourth Amendment.

      And apparently it is still not clearly established.

  7. “You know what? We’re just going to go ahead and find they have unqualified immunity.”

  8. The majority suggested that the Caldwell officers might reasonably have believed West’s permission to enter her house included permission to wreck it.

    “After all, they *are* police officers.”

    1. “Hi, Judge Graber, can I come in for a second? Thanks!”

      *Kicks in door, eats centerpiece, shits on floor.*

      1. This.
        I am surprised no lawyer for the plaintiff asked “Your Honor, if you handed me your key so I could retrieve a tool from your garage, and I drove my car into your living room and shat in your oven, would you consider that reasonable?”
        Even if the judge comes up with a way to make that sound reasonable, you’d have it there on the public record, no?

    2. Police are not in the Constitution, they sort of started muscling their way into cities since about 1860 and keep asking for “tools” to do the job the simpletons in society ask then to do. “Tools” always is loss of Rights. Police do not stop crime and are afraid to do anything without 20 other officers backing them up plus constantly “need” our help to ID video of robberies and the like. They are allowed to make mistakes while arresting citizens and once the cuffs are on you are a criminal…

  9. The answer to any question from a cop that begins “Do I/we have your permission . . . ” is NO!

    1. Then she would have been arrested and her kids taken away from her.

      1. And they’d shoot her dog.

  10. They may have wrecked her home, but at least they didn’t cut her in two.

  11. Anarchy sounds better every day.

    1. Spoken like a true clinger. Your betters were trying to deal with a dangerous situation, and you wish for anarchy. Does that solve all of life’s problems? No it does not. Those in charge know what they are doing. If a few holes in the drywall occur, what is that?

      1. A violation of a citizen’s reasonable expectation of respect for private property?

      2. So, if you handed your keys to the someone looking for a fugitive in your house, you would think it was reasonable for them to trash your house, make it uninhabitable for 3 months, not reimburse you for damages or rental charges?

        1. *psst*
          That’s one of the parodies.

      3. “betters”???

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

        Does that ring a bell?

      4. So I see you use a parody of that horse’s ass Reverend Kirkland as well. It’s nice to know other people think that he is as smart as a doorstop.

      5. “Dickland”? You are Reverend Dickland and we are supposed to take your comment seriously???

    2. This WAS anarchy. The people with the most guns won. Laws really didn’t enter into it.

  12. If the Supreme Court votes wrong on this then we are screwed. Could not be more obvious. Tragic that it’s all about lawyers, and the police union’s lawyer was more connected than the victim’s was.

    1. We are already screwed. There is really no judges that support allowing QI to stand as is. At worst they will allow the basic concept to stand but tweak it to allow ensure new precedents are established. Screwed, but not as hard.

  13. Judge Marsha Berzon For the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

  14. Yes. Letting them enter and not letting them enter are both directly causal to the damages. You are responsible, either way.

    It didn’t used to be homes as much, but the sight of a family sitting alongside the road as police scattered their belongings on the right of way while doing a search always set my blood boiling. It was quite apparent when they were in “screwing with this guy” mode and tossing everything as carelessly as possible. I never stopped to ask, but I always had the feeling that they were inside cutting seats and ripping door panels too.

  15. Well the lesson is there, don’t ever cooperate with the police. They will make you regret it even if you are trying to help them. “Fugitive in my house? Well I don’t approve of him being there if he is in there. You’ll need a warrant. Got one? No. See you later then…” Don’t cooperate ever.

    Those cops are truly evil people to deprive an innocent person, who was trying to help them, of her house.

    1. Not just the cops. They have an employer who is apparently all-in as well.

  16. I really, really like the bit about providing consent without restrictions as to time or manner of said entry.

    So apparently the majority of this 9th circuit panel was also ready to go with an argument that “once you provide consent to search your property, that consent is valid until it is withdrawn”. So they would have been just fine and dandy with a violent entry 5 years from now too. “hey, she consented!”

    1. For God’s sake stop giving them ideas.

    2. Cops are like vampires, apparently.

      They can’t come in if you don’t say yes, but once they’re in, you can’t get them out.

  17. Well, she IS a woman, so she can retroactively change consent to rape.
    Which would certainly be true in this case.

  18. I guess she learned the lesson about trusting the police, don’t.

  19. Seems the question isn’t whether she “invited” them, but whether their actions were proportional to the risk that the fugitive posed.

    Note that there are four parties who might theoretically have to pay for the damages: the woman,
    the fugitive, the police officers personally or the taxpayer.

    1. I have this fantasy: a cop asks permission to search my vehicle and I reply, “Yes if you agree, personally, to pay me $120/hour for the inconvenience and you accept liability for any damage you to do to my property. (I don’t care whether or not your employer reimburses you.) Here is a form contract …”

      1. I don’t know exactly what the response to that is, but I have a feeling it involves the repeated use of the phrase “stop resisting.”

      2. Hmmm have to have my Lawyer draw up a contract. Police asks for consent to search, I hand him the contract saying here are my terms and conditions to agree to the terms of your search. and every officer that participates in the search must sign a copy as well. First time I’d be hoping the call in LOTS of back up.

  20. …case law had not clearly established that point.

    Isn’t the job of courts to take cases and make decisions on those cases on their merits to establish case law?

    1. When it comes to restricting police’s authority and power?

      Not since the 80s.

  21. Then cops have the audacity to wonder why people cheer when one of them stops a bullet.

  22. American copping, from local county deputy to federal DEA/ATF/FBI is completely out of control.

    You will trust these people at your peril, ESPECIALLY if you’ve done nothing wrong.

  23. Hi Everyone………

    Make ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­50­0­­­­­­0 every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our Fox86 website and start getting that much needed extra income every month… You’ll get trained by us, no prior experience needed… Find out more about it on following address>>>>> , ONLINE WORK

  24. This isn’t a 4th Amendment case. Its a “don’t be an asshole” case. Ergo, they’ll get off.

    1. Not being an asshole would go against their training and violate procedures.

  25. Is there more to this story? She hands the cops her key and walks away?

    Why not just go in the house, see that he isn’t there, and shoo the cops away?

    1. Do you think the police would allow the girlfriend to go in the house to check if her fugitive boy friend was in there? Do you think they would take her word, no he’s not there?

      The police will say that allowing a family member or friend go in and check if the wanted person is in the home will only put them in the position of becoming a hostage or joining forces with them in resisting arrest.

      Besides, a peaceful resolution robs the police of the opportunity to re-enact the sieges on the MOVE in Philadelphia, the Weaver family in Idaho, or the Branch Davidians in Waco. Where is the fun in that?

      Locally, family of a fugitive told the SWAT team he was not in the house. The SWAT team tear-gassed and burned down their home rather than walk in with the family and check for themselves. The fugitive was later arrested in another state. Goin in with family to verify he was not in the house was not considered a viable option.

  26. Punitive search, which includes wanton unnecessary destruction of property, was a technique developed by the Geheime Staatspolizei of the Third Reich to cower enemies of the State.
    It has been developed to perfection in America.
    With QI (the opposite of IQ), it happens more than it should.

    Punitive search coupled with forfeiture without trial and abuse of SWAT as the only tool (a sledgehammer) in the police kit all covered by qualified immunity will lead to an imperfect storm.

  27. I’d say “never give consent to police entering your home,” but they just would have gotten a warrant and destroyed the house anyway.

    1. At least they could not claim “you invited them in”. That nuance might make a difference to SCOTUS.

    2. In this particular case, since it seemed the cops knew that Mr. Salinas was an ex-boyfriend, they probably would not have been able to obtain a warrant unless they had evidence that he was still there, or she was involved in hiding him. Even if they did, a warrant is pretty specific as to why they need to get into the premises.

      1. Oh you blaspheme.

        See many recent cases where cops lied to get a warrant with no repercussions.

      2. Oh, please. Judges hand out warrants for the asking.

  28. ‘”Plaintiff agreed that officers could ‘get inside [her] …Defendants did ‘get inside’…, first with objects and later with people. Plaintiff never expressed a limitation as to time, place…, or manner of entry.”‘

    Great model for consent. Now, do vaginas.

    1. Cop: I believe I saw you put a baggie in your mouth. Do I have your consent to look inside your mouth?
      Suspect: Uh, OK. [Opens mouth].
      Cop: [shoots hole in back of suspects head]
      Court: Gee, there are no cases that say it’s unreasonable to shoot through the back of someone’s head to look in their mouth. Qualified Immunity!

  29. “Our research has uncovered no controlling Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit decision holding that ‘an officer acting under similar circumstances as [Defendants]…violated the Fourth
    Amendment,'”

    This is why the many of the framers wanted no Bill of Rights. It was assumed that, absent a BoR, the (Federal) government was limited to what was laid out in written word and that a BoR could actually be used as a limitation of rights. Seems to have come to pass, in spades!

    1. Huh? Rights are inherent and government takes an oath about protecting those Rights. Govt does not give out Rights. Madison wanted the Bill of Rights at the end to indicate government has power but no Rights. People have Rights and the Bill of Rights gives them power over government, at least it was that way and there was no police force wanted or needed at that time, now you know why.

  30. So the Ninth is arguing that destroying the inside of a person’s home is “reasonable”? Good thing for those cops I’m not on that jury.

    1. If the courts grant qualified immunity, there never is a jury.

  31. “Sure, you can shoot grenades through my windows, walls and ceilings. Wait – you’ll need the front door key for that. Here you go.”

  32. 15 minutes can save you 15 percent with Geico. That headline tho.

  33. To answer the headline question: of course, it does! This is the USSA, where we are sliding into an Orwellian, Kafkaesque surveillance/police state, where individual rights don’t matter, police are almost 100% immune from prosecution no matter how outrageous their behavior (up to and including murder), and “rule of law” is just a talking point.

    But don’t forget all your patriotic songs telling how free we are and all that claptrap.

  34. Deal with cops exactly according to the letter of the law. If they don’t have a warrant to enter your property, either don’t let them in, or specify their limits. If they don’t agree to the limitations, don’t let them in. Police have been known to lie, steal, and plant evidence. The officers that take these actions are in the great minority, but they show all officers in a bad light, and any officer that does not realize this is simply fooling himself. I have friends that are officers and honest people, but they are aware of the bad apples on the force, and do their best to stop it.

    1. The officers that take these actions are in the great minority

      Bullshit.

      they are aware of the bad apples on the force, and do their best to stop it.

      Bullshit.

  35. Speaking for myself, I’m given to wonder as to exactly what “the court” might have been partaking of immediately prior to issuing it’s ruling in this case. Additionally, the following question comes to mind. Given this sort of court ruling, exactly what effects on the public’s cooperation with “law enforcement”might reasonably be expected>

    1. They don’t need our cooperation if there are no restrictions on their actions.

  36. Speaking for myself, I’m given to wonder as to exactly what “the court” might have been partaking of immediately prior to issuing it’s ruling in this case. Additionally, the following question comes to mind. Given this sort of court ruling, exactly what effects on the public’s cooperation with “law enforcement”might reasonably be expected?

  37. WHATEVER do those stupid Ninth Circus “judges” have for brains? If I were to stop round, knock up THEIR door, and ask permissiin to enter (and it were granted) and I then came on in and began to hooliganise the place thereby destroying it as a dwelling, I shouldn’t wonder they’d be more than a tiny bit peeved, and want recompense for my handiwork. Put the shoe in THEIR foot and see how they like it. But those guys live in a world most of us do not occupy.

    1. exactly!

  38. Two Qs for the lawyers in the crowd which are of interest as long as the current behind-the-looking-glass QI doctrine persists:
    1) Is there any way to influence courts to do the extra diligence to set precedents where they can, so that an obvious rights violation is at least forced to be novel (if only narrowly) in order to be immune, rather than going unpunished repeatedly, forever?
    2) How closely linked must an act be to the performance of the perpetrator’s law-enforcement responsibilities in order to “merit” QI protection? (I know we’re behind the looking glass here, but QI can’t amount to a blanket license to rape-and-pillage in novel ways just for shits and giggles. Can it?)

    1. It’s been obvious for some time, the courts have become a legislative branch.

      1. No, they are the home of tyranny. There are no branches on that tree.

    2. Is there any way to influence courts…

      You can stop right there. The answer is no.

      QI can’t amount to a blanket license to rape-and-pillage in novel ways just for shits and giggles. Can it?

      In very rare cases, police officers are prosecuted for serious crimes committed on duty, but, for the most part, yes, it can.

  39. This police action reminds me of the scene from the movie “”Brazil” where the police swat team cut a man-size hole in the floor of the apartment above, drop a fireman’s pole, slide down, and storm the apartment of a guy who is mistaken for someone they want to eradicate. While the wife is holding the screaming children, the police grab the baffled and passive husband and subdue him with a straight jacket. They leave a trashed apartment behind. All of this began with a computer printing the wrong name of the targeted person due to a bug falling into the computer printer. It was a bizarre and frightful scene which reminds one that the State can be an unreasonably oppressive actor through its police power being carried too far. Art imitates life.

  40. Turns out ya can’t legislate decency

    1. But apparently you can train it out of some people.

  41. If the lady said yes to their question of whether or not they could enter her house AND her giving them the keys….common sense would make you think they could’ve just gone in an searched the place rather than sic the dogs…to me it sounds like some kind of deal where they called in SWAT just give them something to do and justify their existence….or at worst make it a training exercise.

    Anybody should be held responsible for destruction of private property, especially real property that is everyone’s biggest investment in life. It’s not so much that they did what they did but the bigger issue is…the decision made to call SWAT. Those guys go in an go to shooting and totally feel immune to anything they do. The guy that called them needs to be set down and read the riot act or at least show why he and a few fellow officers felt threatened without even actually seeing what the deal was.

  42. There is noticeably a bundle to comprehend this. .. garage door fix

  43. Noticeably absent from this article is who appointed each of these judges. There’s been a recent lefty notion to refrain from reporting this, ostensibly because the the Obama appointees are generally morons.

    1. Could you possibly be any more brain dead?

      There were three judges involved.

      Majority:
      1. Susan P. Graber – appointed by Neil Goldschmidt (D)
      2. Eduardo C. Robreno – appointed by George HW Bush (R)

      Dissent:
      3. Marsha S. Berzon – appointed by Bill Clinton (D)

      So, whereas the “right” was 100% supportive of this decision, the “left” was only 50% supportive.

      Take your tribal idiocy and your partisan confirmation bias and fuck off.

  44. Editor’s Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses…. Click it here  

  45. Seems to me that this would fall under the Doctrine of Use Of Excessive Force that individual officers run afoul of.
    From the description it sounds like the SWAT Team, instead of acting in a responsible manner in accordance with Standard Police Procedure decided it was party time in the same fashion that a bunch of teenagers given the “run of the house” make the poorly thought out decision to raid the booze and have a drunken blow out.
    Only it was supposedly responsible adults acting in an unacceptable manner, for which they should collectively and individually be criminally and civilly held to account, for all damages both physical and psychological.
    If it were up to me, the entire SWAT Team would be suspended and put on permanent uniformed patrol duty, the Officer In Charge would be Fired For Cause, and they would collectively be responsible for Treble Damages.

  46. they have no right to enter homes and trash them, regardless of the arrest or investigation

    removals plymouth</a

  47. Completely unnecessary to do this to any home regardless of the circumstances.

    removals plymouth

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.