[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.