Police mistakenly raid law professor
“I’ve been on the fence for years about the legalization of drugs … and now I’m a victim of this crazy war on drugs,” says Freshman, who pledged to sue until “I see [the agents’] houses sold at auction and their kids’ college tuitions taken away from them. There will not be a better litigated case this century.”
February 18th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Interesting that a law professor doesn’t appear to understand qualified immunity.
February 18th, 2011 at 11:00 am
well, there is that. but i like his spirit.
February 18th, 2011 at 11:07 am
I’ve always been cloudy on qualified immunity. What does it cover, and what does it not cover?
February 18th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
there’s always respondent superior. Cities have more and more liability these days as found by courts.
February 18th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
As the article notes, in similar cases of an incorrect warrant for searching one unit in a multi-unit building, where all units are searched, there have been substantial damages collected. I suspect this article, along with precedents, will lead to a settlement.
And, hey, the guy is a lawyer and law professor. Of course he will scream bloody murder until he is paid. It is what that species does.
February 18th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Qualified Immunity applies to officials performing their duties correctly. When the applicant for the warrant incorrectly describes the building in question I believe “misfeasance” applies and the officer responsible has his ass in the wind.
February 18th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
From the article, it looks like there’s enough previous case law on point that qualified immunity shouldn’t apply. It seems to be “well established” that when a search warrant doesn’t specify a particular unit in a multi-unit building, then it isn’t valid.
February 18th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Go Hastings Law! The SFPD are lazy asses who have a very high failure-to-convict ratio, while Hastings Law alumni sit on District and Superior Court benches throughout California, are in the State Assembly, and are in the US Senate.
February 18th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Lets see if he’s any good. I remember a D.C. lawyer that sued for millions when a dry cleaner lost his pants.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3119381&page=1
February 18th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Oooops! Why is San Fran even going after Druggies? Do they really want to be on the news for arresting Pelosi, the Mayor and the City Counsel? I thought there was a law REQUIRing all Friscans to be High 24/7? How else will the Mexican Drug Cartels stay in business?
February 18th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Hey, Uncle gets a hat-tip from Cato Institute!!
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/really-wrong-door-raid/
February 18th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. I’m not sure what to call somebody who’s gotten mugged by the police. It’s a great way to change hearts and minds, if you can stand the side effects.
February 18th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Officer Biggs is even more incompetent than SF Weekly thinks. A bit of fiddling with Google Maps Street level view shows that 243 Diamond is actually a FOUR story structure, not a two as asserted in the warrant.
The garage is one, with two floors easily visible from the street immediately in front of the house. Move up the street a way and you can see another floor that is set back from the front of the building so as to have a balcony/deck for the fourth floor.
February 18th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“who pledged to sue until “I see [the agents’] houses sold at auction and their kids’ college tuitions taken away from them.”
-Amen-
February 18th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Re: What you call someone who has been mugged by the police?
Libertarian
I refer you to the work of Radley Balko “libertarianism happens to people”
February 18th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Maybe he can sue SF a little deeper into bankruptcy.
Too bad he won’t be able to bankrupt the cops involved.
February 19th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Qualified Immunity means whatever the judge says it means. It doesn’t exist outside the minds of the court. Obviously, there is case law that will restrict the lower courts. But it has no meaning in codified law.
February 19th, 2011 at 10:40 am
This might be the case we’ve been waiting for…
February 19th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Good for him! This isn’t going to stop until it costs the folks who do it in personal ways.
I think officers ought to lose their commission over sloppy stuff like this.
Let’s see if he really does it now…..
February 21st, 2011 at 8:06 pm
So; you only acquire principles after something so obviously wrong as Prohibition hits you personally? Actually no; he hasn’t acquired principles. He’s on a personal vendetta, which isn’t the same thing. Still I wish him luck with the case.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:11 am
Unfortunately when someone sues the government and wins, we all pay the bill. And most of the cops involved will get a slap on the wrist, keep their jobs and continue doing what they do.