[synt4x1k0]

"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent domain. The district court agreed with the defendants: it concluded that “the tactical decisions that ultimately destroyed [the Lechs’] home were made pursuant to the state’s police powers and not the power of eminent domain.” App. vol. 2, 399. Thus, the district court ruled, the defendants’conduct did not constitute a taking for purposes of the Taking Clause."

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf

[rebuilder]

Yes, it seems important to note this court ruled on whether police actions violated the takings clause, not on, e.g., whether the police were justified in their use of force, or even if the homeowner should be compensated on some other grounds.

[nosianu]

What's the point of the law if you can get lost dealing in technicalities at the cost of complete and utter disregard for outcomes?

Sure, everybody is technically correct. Loosely reminds of of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_t... -- people getting caught in admiring the cleverness of their arguments and forgetting what the whole original purpose was. Or when some gamers spending more time in the virtual fantasy world then in the real one, solving "challenges" there rather than here.

[rebuilder]

If you go to the court to get a ruling on a specific claim and the court rules on that claim, I don't think you can call that a technicality.

Now, why the lawyer recommended this line of action is an interesting question. My uneducated guess would be that there was precedent in favour of the police, and framing it as a constitutional issue was seen to be the best possibility.

As a whole, this entire thing sounds insane, of course. But the court did what they were supposed to do, it's the rest of this whole story that is messed up.

[visarga]

It's ok if the police does it.

[diffeomorphism]

Explicitly the opposite of what was said.

[boomboomsubban]

It says that this would not be permissible under eminent domain, but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior.

"It's ok if the police does it" is a fair summary.

[diffeomorphism]

> but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior.

No, they made no comment on whether that is acceptable. The court case was about "alleging violations of the Takings Clause". The court said that this clause does not apply in this case:

- (1) when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking.

- (3) any damage to the Lechs’ home therefore fell outside the ambit of the Takings Clause.

This does not say anything about it being "ok if the police does it" or even comments on whether it is okay at all. It just says that they sued over the wrong law.

[jawns]

> when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking

Isn't that moving the goalposts, though?

What this ruling effectively says is that as long as the state doesn't invoke eminent domain to take a citizen's property, then it's not eminent domain, even if the end result is that a citizen's property is taken?

I would much prefer a reading of eminent domain that says if a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property, regardless of its justification for doing so, then that's Taking.

[diffeomorphism]

I am not sure that is preferable.

If "a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property" what does it derive this authority from?

If it is from eminent domain it is allowed to do A but must follow rules B.

If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case, the first question is not whether it has to follow rules B, but whether it is allowed to do A at all.

[boomboomsubban]

>when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking

It's not taking if done under police action, or "it's OK if the police do it."

>It just says that they sued over the wrong law.

Is there some clause in the police action laws that makes them liable for damages? You would think they would have just sued them under that clause after the first trial rather than try to make the appeals court consider it "taking."