Disgraceful decision: WA Property owner not entitled to recompense for police damages

In a split decision Thursday, the state Supreme Court rejected a plea by a Kent property owner seeking compensation for damage done during a drug raid. Affirming lower court decisions, five of the court's nine justices found the city of Kent was not required to pay $5,000 for damage to buildings owned by Leo Brutsche during a failed 2004 anti-methamphetamine operation.

During the raid, narcotics officers used battering rams to knock down doors in buildings owned by Brutsche while searching for a meth lab they believed Brutsche's son to be operating on the property, according to court records. No drugs were found, and Brutsche contends he offered officers keys to the doors before they began knocking them down.

At issue in the case was whether police departments are required to compensate bystanders for property damage, said John Muenster, an attorney representing Brutsche. On that count, Muenster said, the Supreme Court reaffirmed an existing ruling that the state must pay for damage that results from police negligence or misconduct.

Muenster said the decision was "a win for civil liberties principles," even though his client did not prevail. "This decision will benefit other citizens and property owners," Muenster said. "It's a defeat for the police in that they were saying they're not liable for any damage done to private property when they're doing a raid."

Attorney Richard Jolley, who represented Kent in the appeal, described the decision as a win for his clients. The majority's ruling, Jolley said, found the officers did not trespass during the raid, and that damage done in a raid is not a "taking" under the state constitution. The constitution would require compensation for a taking of private property, as in cases where the state acquires land through eminent domain.

A key concern for the city was that the high court would reverse earlier findings against Brutsche where the case was thrown out before it reached a jury. In those rulings, according to Thursday's decision, lower court judges found no evidence that officers acted "in a negligent manner" on Brutsche's property. "We're happy with the opinion," Jolley said. "For my clients, what this is saying is that they didn't trespass when they were executing the search warrant."

Four of the court's nine justices disagreed, finding that the case raised factual issues deserving a jury trial. "There is nothing more reprehensible to the law than an agent of the government causing unnecessary and unreasonable damage to the person or property of a person while performing -- or purporting to perform -- a government function," Justice Tom Chambers said in one of two dissenting opinions issued in the case. "There may be a legitimate basis for breaking down doors the owner stands ready and willing to unlock," he added. "But that use of force should be subject to scrutiny."

Speaking Thursday, Muenster pointed out that Brutsche was not suspected of any crime. Brutsche's son, James Brutsche, was not charged in the case, according to court records. He later died in an explosion on the property. Muenster said he plans to file a motion for reconsideration with the state Supreme Court, requesting that the justices allow the case to be heard by a King County jury.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)