http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/148wn2d/148wn2d0760.htm#148wn2d0760In Eggleston the Police took out a "Load Bearing Wall" to use as evidence in a murder charge against the Petitioner's son. Petitioner Eggleston was living on just $500 a month in 1998 but was under a Court Order that she could do nothing to "destroy evidence" even if that meant just repairing her home to be habitable. She was forced to live in her mother's Mobile home. The Washington State Supreme court ruled the order preventing her from doing any repairs was NOT a taking, but just preservation of Evidence and therefore the State did NOT have to compensate her for it. Thus you had a handicap woman living on $500 a month NOT being permitted to do any repairs to her home (And the walls removed were NOT even used at the trial of her son, but the Jury did go to the home).
The debate is should the state pay a innocent third party to preserve evidence in a Criminal case? The Washington State Supreme Court said yes AND the State has no obligation to pay for any lost to anyone (including innocent third parties) if all that is being done is preservation of Evidence. Other states (Cited in both cases) have ruled otherwise where the cost were high (One case cited was from Texas where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state had to pay the innocent landlord when the police burned down the house he had rented to others, but the police wanted to arrest the tenants for Criminal activities).
After reading both decisions I can see where the Court is coming from. Fortunately I live in Pennsylvania where it is hard to get a Summary judge granted UNLESS there is absolutely no factual dispute (refer to as the Nanty-Glo Rule from a Case out of Nanty-Glo, Cambria County PA).
Remember in both cases the action being review was a Summary Motion decision by the trial judge who ruled that any reasonable Jury will find certain facts and no others (This is NOT the test for summary Judgments in Pa, the Pa test is NO disputed facts, NOT that any reasonable Jury would find the facts the Judge sets forth, thanks to William Penn AND the 1874 State Constitution, both were Jury mad). Other states also leave this up to Juries to set the facts. In those states (and the Federal Courts) that give Judges wide discretion as to Summary Judgments, those are the states that have to decide is the case the type with no reasonable disputes as to facts that permit Summary Judgment, or let the case go to a Jury to decide the facts of the Case.
Even the dissent agreed with the Majority as to what the legal test for Police "taking" of property was, the real issue was if the facts of the Case really in dispute OR not (i.e. no real dispute, summary Judgment is permitted, facts are in dispute up to a Jury). Now the court went the extra step and said the POLICE in exercising a Warrant may do whatever they deem needed to "protect" themselves, even if that mean refusing to take the keys from the owner and instead use a battering Ram (The Majority called such a decision by the Police "Reasonable" and THUS not a Fact in dispute. Thus the decision NOT to use the keys offered to them and use the Battering Ram was within the Police discretion on how to enforce the Search Warrant and protect themselves (and the Plaintiff NOT eligible for any relief).
Note both the Majority and the dissent agree to what the actual legal test was, the dispute was over whether the use of the Battering Ram Reasonable as a matter of law as opposed to a matter of fact. The Majority said by law what the Police did was reasonable as a matter of law, the dissent said that was a question of fact left up to a Jury to decide.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
