Cops Steal Property While Executing Warrant - not unconstitutional!

[Knuckle Dragger]

Can't make this up, the emphasis is mine:

We need not—and do not—decide whether the City Officers violated the Constitution. At the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property that is seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/03/20/17-16756.pdf

 

[Al-Jim19]

So...they’ve acknowledged theft but also claimed that theft by an officer isn’t a violation of the law in any way???

 

[Chevy 2 65]

WTF

I see the ninth circus is at again.

They should contact this guy.

MARC J. VICTOR, ESQ.
PRESIDENT
CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN CRIMINAL LAW
[email protected]
480-725-3929

 

[headednorth]

"Because Appellants did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity."

WTF? Somebody stop this ride I wanna get off. Jesus...

 

[Bonesinium]

I’m sadly not surprised. There are numerous cases with nearly identical rulings with just the crime being different. The corruption is to this extent.

Cops are granted qualified immunity, even if there actions are criminal, so long that those crimes aren’t also either specifically mentioned as being against there policy, or a prior court ruling specifically establishes that crime as being a constitutional violation.

Which means for the most part it’s as simple as not crimes also a policy violation. And why would they anyways? Who needs a policy to tell a cop they can’t commit crimes, right? Well...

So...they’ve acknowledged theft but also claimed that theft by an officer isn’t a violation of the law in any way???

Well sort of. They are saying it’s not clearly established and thus qualified immunity is an acceptable defense. It’s how courts routinely justify clearly unjustifiable actions when committed by cops.

 

[Bonesinium]

Reading the ruling some more I see my characterization is indeed accurate. They even mention some of these other court rulings that do this.

This is also a fun quote:

“Some of these courts have reasoned that because “the word ‘seizure’ [has been] defined as a temporally limited act,” the Fourth Amendment provides protection only against the initial taking of property, not its continued retention.”

You see, a seizure is only temporary, where stealing is permanent. Therefore the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply. Because of course if you can’t even temporary take something that doesn’t mean you can’t take it permanently! That’s totally different!

 

[1776]

This is what the Village Vault does, so whats new?

 

[fstkmaro]

I read the entire thing. I think that the initial complaint just focused on the fourth and fourteenth amendments which, by the reasoning of the court, such complaints do not apply. They say in the conclusion that they do sympathize with the appellants and also indicate that they do have other remedies to seek. In my opinion, and not being a lawyer, I feel that the appellants' lawyer failed to recognize the sketchiness of his/her approach. I feel that the appellants can still obtain remedy utilizing the option suggested in footnote 1. This is one of those reasonings that at first sight seem unfair. I do, however, feel that the court did research the questions to some extent that supports their decision. It sucks for the appellants to have that happen. I hope they re-coup their loss.

 

[Bonesinium]

So...they’ve acknowledged theft but also claimed that theft by an officer isn’t a violation of the law in any way???

“Although the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft of Appellants’ money and rare coins would be improper, they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.”

You see, they should have known stealing is wrong, but nobody told them specifically that it is. Therefore justified!

 

[Bonesinium]

I feel that the appellants can still obtain remedy utilizing the option suggested in footnote 1.

I’m also not a lawyer but it seems odd the proper remedy to theft of 225k is a tort claim. If only non governmental personnel were held to such ridiculous standards for crimes.

 

[HuntMaine]

Undo untied long term borrowing....

 

[fstkmaro]

I’m also not a lawyer but it seems odd the proper remedy to theft of 225k is a tort claim. If only non governmental personnel were held to such ridiculous standards for crimes.

I agree, however, it seems to me that the court was addressing the matter brought to them regarding the fourth and fourteenth amendments and not the theft itself.

 

[308rifleman]

Lesson learned. Do not keep all eggs in one basket. Family heirlooms, firearms that are collector's items, etc should be cached. With ERPO laws and public schools brainwashing our kids, all it takes is one Freudian slip to have cops with rubber-stamped search warrants appearing at your front door to grab your shit.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Wait. So they umpteen different movies where the cops steal the drugs from the impound area. . . that's not illegal???? Then why keep a lock on the door???

 

[xtry51]

I read the entire thing. I think that the initial complaint just focused on the fourth and fourteenth amendments which, by the reasoning of the court, such complaints do not apply. They say in the conclusion that they do sympathize with the appellants and also indicate that they do have other remedies to seek. In my opinion, and not being a lawyer, I feel that the appellants' lawyer failed to recognize the sketchiness of his/her approach. I feel that the appellants can still obtain remedy utilizing the option suggested in footnote 1. This is one of those reasonings that at first sight seem unfair. I do, however, feel that the court did research the questions to some extent that supports their decision. It sucks for the appellants to have that happen. I hope they re-coup their loss.

I disagree. I believe the very problem with the legal system is that the victim must for some unknown reason choose a direction of attack within the law. As a citizen the judge is supposed to know stealing is wrong and the citizen should only have to prove something was taken. It should be up to the judge to apply known law to punish the theif.

The idea citizens must even have a lawyer makes the entire system absurd and corrupt. If a normal person cannot understand the law, it shouldn't be a law.

 

[fstkmaro]

I don't disagree with your point on whether or not stealing is wrong and I don't think that the court's decision does either. I do think that, when it comes to the complaint brought in front of them, their analysis and eventual opinion, clarifies the fat that the theft is not a matter of the 4th or 14th amendment. Now, could they have had the power to amend the complaint to apply the theft issue, maybe. In that case, they could have ruled in favor of the appellants on the matter of the theft as amended. This, as I presume you would agree, would have been a much preferred and logical result.
Citizens do not 'have' to have a lawyer, however as many things in life, some things are better left to professionals. The law, in my opinion, is the Bible of society and as such it is open to interpretation as much as the religious bible. Many decisions are based on historical precedent thus making things a bit strange. That is a lot of history to go through sometimes .

 

[nstassel]

Two observations. First this decision does not assert that stealing is ok from citizens. It has to do with whether individual cops stealing is a constitutional violation which the plaintiffs wanted because with a civil rights claim comes attorneys fees. Nail a cop for stealing some trinket and you could theoretically bill hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city or state if you can prove it.

Second, it is shocking how common thefts are when executing search warrants if my experience is an example. I once went with a team that executed a warrant on a house that was literally filled with stolen property and the federal agents I was with started openly comparing what they took after we left, they were like kids on xmas. Lawyers were always complaining to me that their clients were complaining about thefts in searches of their clients homes, and my own clients have alleged to me missing money. One cop was particularly notorious and ultimately was fired for other conduct.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Wow... This is literally the textbook definition of civil rights violations.... If they had broken in and stolen the money, it would be a crime... But they did it under a SHROUD OF AUTHORITY... Which is exactly what a 1984 claim is. Unreal.

 

[amm5061]

Two observations. First this decision does not assert that stealing is ok from citizens. It has to do with whether individual cops stealing is a constitutional violation which the plaintiffs wanted because with a civil rights claim comes attorneys fees. Nail a cop for stealing some trinket and you could theoretically bill hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city or state if you can prove it.

Second, it is shocking how common thefts are when executing search warrants if my experience is an example. I once went with a team that executed a warrant on a house that was literally filled with stolen property and the federal agents I was with started openly comparing what they took after we left, they were like kids on xmas. Lawyers were always complaining to me that their clients were complaining about thefts in searches of their clients homes, and my own clients have alleged to me missing money. One cop was particularly notorious and ultimately was fired for other conduct.

When you put it in this context, it makes more sense. The real problem is that there doesn't seem to be any incentive for them not to steal. How many times are they caught and prosecuted for grand theft even when they're this blatant about it? I've never heard of it, though admittedly I'm no legal professional.

The way to stop this is the same way to deter other crimes. Catch a few of the worst offenders and make extreme examples. I still think we need to bring back public hangings.

 

[Bonesinium]

But they did it under a SHROUD OF AUTHORITY...

And that’s why they were granted qualified immunity. Isn’t that rather convenient, eh?

 

[quincy]

Why would they even need a warrant? The cop that lived next to my late elderly dad was always stealing money from him. Of course we trusted him with the key so he could check on dad when we weren’t able to.

 

[eboos]

Theft is theft. Theft is not remedied as a constitutional violation when the property was properly seized and later stolen. Qualified immunity will not protect the thieves from criminal prosecution, only the department from which the property was stolen and where the thieves worked.

 

[Bonesinium]

Correct. The department itself will protect the thieves from criminal prosecution. Notice how we’re not reading about these cops being criminally charged?

 

[GM-GUY]

Did they go with the Constitutional violation claim as the local PD that did the stealing wouldn’t do anything about it / so they were only left with that avenue?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

So here we are then. The cops can just wander into your yard, hold the family at gun point, attempt to shoot the family dog and shoot your family instead and then go in the house and help themselves to anything they want and the citizen has no way of protecting himself because of qualified immunity?

 

[GM-GUY]

I wouldn’t say a citizen has no way of protecting oneself, however the same accommodations will not be extended.

 

[mav]

So here we are then. The cops can just wander into your yard, hold the family at gun point, attempt to shoot the family dog and shoot your family instead and then go in the house and help themselves to anything they want and the citizen has no way of protecting himself because of qualified immunity?

You can fight and die or fight and not die, but spend a good portion of your life in prison or trying to stay out of prison. The other alternative is you can prepare and organize your property so if you are ever unlucky enough to have to deal with the situation you posted above, you aren’t wiped out and can move on with your life. Pursuing justice in the courts, while expensive and time consuming, will likely not result in you being dead by cop...