Police don't have to pay for damage during raids
The state Supreme Court, in a split decision, ruled Thursday that police departments do not have to pay for damage accrued to propery during drug raids.
Leo Burtsche was asking for $5,000 in damages to properties he owned that were damaged by police in search of a meth lab. No drugs were ever found, but Burtsche nonetheless will be left to foot the bill for his broken down doors.
Both sides are claiming a victory in this case, with Burtsche's lawyer promising they will be back and the Kent Police Department claiming vindication.
But the real issue for me lies in the fact that no drugs were ever found at the property and Burtsche was never even suspected of a crime. So, police ran an unnecessary raid and still pay nothing. Ok...
Then it turns out Burtsche offered the police keys to the property, but they used a battering ram instead. I understand. How many times in your life do you get to use a battering ram. Keep the keys, I'll do some busting.
The message here, as always, is don't do meth. But you should not only avoid doing meth, you should avoid having police suspect that people that live in properties you rent are on meth. Because even if they're wrong, you're going to be out a few grand.
That's it, do you remember when, the feds got the gift of the IRA's machine guns,
The 'East Side' was due to leave port (Pier 2 New York Harbour) on 17th June 1921. that's where the tommy guns came from, Hollywood loved it
How many times did some hood in a shack say, I've a lever action and a 38, I figure, I'll cop to a plea, and go on cine-news with Mr Hoover
only to be blattered back into reality with a cloud of 45 pellets? Let Bobby Fuller tell you a story
I left my baby and I feel so bad, I guess my race is run, Well, she's the best girl ... I've ever had, I Fought the Law and the ... law won, I Fought the Law and the ... law won
The best defence to a no-knock warrent is to live somewhere else.