From a PR standpoint, for the Police Department, and all police departments, this is a disaster!!!!!

But I am sure the Canary Clan are proud of this, and high fiveing !!!!

At the District Court of Colorado:

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2016cv01956/164875/131/0.pdf

Lech v Jackson, CODC 16-cv-1958 (19 May 2018)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1051.pdf

At the 10th Circuit court:

Lech v Jackson, 18-1051 (10th Cir, 29 Oct 2019) not eminent domain taking

At 3-4:

On June 3, 2015, officers from the City’s police department responded to a burglar alarm at the Lechs’ home and learned that Robert Seacat, an armed criminal suspect who was attempting to evade capture by the Aurora Police Department, was inside. Although the nine-year-old son of John Lech’s girlfriend was present at the time of the break-in, he was able to exit the home safely.

To prevent Seacat from escaping, the officers positioned their vehicles in the driveway of the Lechs’ home. Seacat then fired a bullet from inside the garage and struck an officer’s car. At that point, the officers deemed the incident a high-risk, barricade situation.⁴ For approximately five hours, negotiators attempted to convince Seacat to surrender. After these efforts to negotiate proved unsuccessful, officers employed increasingly aggressive tactics: they fired several rounds of gas munition into the home, breached the home’s doors with a BearCat armored vehicle so they could send in a robot to deliver a “throw phone” to Seacat, and used explosives to create sight lines and points of entry to the home. App. vol. 2, 380. The officers also sent in a tactical team to apprehend Seacat. But Seacat fired at the officers while they were inside, requiring them to leave. When even these more aggressive tactics failed to draw Seacat out, officers used the BearCat to open multiple holes in the home and again deployed a tactical team to apprehend Seacat.

This time, the tactical team was successful: it managed to disarm Seacat and take him into custody. But as a result of this 19-hour standoff, the Lechs’ home was rendered uninhabitable.

Footnotes at 3-4:

² Because we may affirm the district court’s order based solely on its conclusion that the defendants’ law-enforcement efforts fell within the scope of the police power (and therefore fell outside the scope of the Takings Clause), we need not and do not address whether the Lechs’ Takings Clause claims also fail under what the district court referred to as the “emergency exception” to the Takings Clause. App. vol. 2, 398.

³ The defendants filed a supplemental appendix that contains, among other things, documents from the fleeing suspect’s related criminal proceedings. Because we see no indication that the defendants submitted these documents to the district court, we decline to consider them. See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman, 27 F.3d 500, 506 (10th Cir. 1994) (“This court has held that it cannot, in reviewing a ruling on summary judgment, consider evidence not before the district court.”).

⁴ According to the police department’s manual, a high-risk situation is one that involves “[t]he arrest or apprehension of an armed or potentially armed subject where the likelihood of armed resistance is high.” Supp. App. vol. 1, 27. A barricade situation involves a “standoff created by an armed or potentially armed suspect . . . who is refusing to comply with police demands for surrender.” Id.

At 7-8:

I. Takings, the Police Power, and the Power of Eminent Domain

On appeal, the Lechs first argue the district court erred in drawing a “hard line” between those actions the government performs pursuant to its power of eminent domain and those it performs pursuant to its police power. Aplt. Br. 16. The Lechs do not dispute that the Supreme Court has recognized such a distinction in the context of regulatory takings. See, e.g., Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668–69 (1887) (distinguishing between “the state’s power of eminent domain”—under which “property may not be taken for public use without compensation”—and state’s “police powers”—which are not “burdened with the condition that the state must compensate [affected] individual owners for pecuniary losses they may sustain”). But the Lechs suggest this distinction is not dispositive in the context of physical takings. Compare Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 537 (2005) (describing physical takings as “direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property”), with id. at 539 (describing regulatory takings as “regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent” to physical takings). Specifically, the Lechs maintain that any “physical appropriation of [private] property” by the government—whether committed pursuant to the power of eminent domain or the police power—“gives rise to a per se taking” and thus requires compensation under the Takings Clause. Aplt. Br. 9.

But contrary to the Lechs’ position, at least three of our sibling circuits and the Court of Federal Claims have expressly relied upon the distinction between the state’s police power and the power of eminent domain in cases involving the government’s direct physical interference with private property.

At 17:

Conclusion

Because (1) the defendants’ law-enforcement actions fell within the scope of the police power and (2) actions taken pursuant to the police power do not constitute takings, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Lechs’ Takings Clause claims. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling.

From a PR standpoint, for the Police Department, and all police departments, this is a disaster!!!!!

What do they care - they're the cops. They don't have to apologize or fix the damage they did with their Jack Bauer, CTU-style raid.

I'm sure nolu will be along shortly and tell us all that it's perfectly legal and all that.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and that nolu sham's main problem.

Do you think that if a neighbor had done this he'd not be held responsible? I don't.

Now Trump is giving away another $600 million in tanks, armored vehicles, etc.

More and more people have their homes destroyed by cops, innocent citizens killed by cops and the police state just becomes even more encroaching.

Because (1) the defendants’ law-enforcement actions fell within the scope of the police power

Attaboy! This shit is wrong and you damn well know it.

Your worship of the black robed tyrants is reprehensible. I was wrong - you don't worship cops - you worship the entire judicial system.

How about if this happened to your house?

The city needs to own up to this cop clusterfuck and pay the man what his house is worth.

Leo Lech sued the city, but the court ruled what happened to the home did not amount to eminent domain and was simply a result of a police matter. Therefore, the city was under no obligation to condemn the home nor rebuild it. I

The fact that you defend this is no surprise.

In a statement to the Post, Greenwood Village's attorney pointed to a review of the incident conducted by the National Tactical Officers Association, a nonprofit that trains SWAT teams. The police raid that destroyed Lech's home, the group concluded, was carried out in "in a highly commendable manner."

Surprise, surprise!

Are there any limits to what police can do in pursuit of a suspect?

nolu and the courts think there are NO limits to what cops can do.

There is this unattributed quote.

Because (1) the defendants’ law-enforcement actions fell within the scope of the police power

That pull quote is from the United States Circuit Court for the 10th Circuit Opinion from the Court's Conclusion at page 17. I did not say that, the Court did. You wrenched it out of context.

Conclusion

Because (1) the defendants’ law-enforcement actions fell within the scope of the police power and (2) actions taken pursuant to the police power do not constitute takings, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Lechs’ Takings Clause claims. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling.

Now to proceed to your drivel.

Attaboy! This shit is wrong and you damn well know it.

Your worship of the black robed tyrants is reprehensible. I was wrong - you don't worship cops - you worship the entire judicial system.

How about if this happened to your house?

The city needs to own up to this cop clusterfuck and pay the man what his house is worth.

Leo Lech sued the city, but the court ruled what happened to the home did not amount to eminent domain and was simply a result of a police matter. Therefore, the city was under no obligation to condemn the home nor rebuild it. I

The fact that you defend this is no surprise.

The fact that you condemn the Court opinion without reading it is no surprise.

This lawsuit in Federal court was wrong and both the District and Circuit Courts knew it and stated why that was so.

Lech sued in FEDERAL court for an alleged violation of his CONSTITUTIONAL rights, namely an alleged unconstitutional TAKING of his house contrary to the FIFTH AMENDMENT, i.e. in the exercise of eminent domain.

Nobody TOOK Lech's house. It was damaged, but it was not taken. The police did not exercise eminent domain powers. The police did not violate the FIFTH AMENDMENT.

What FEDERAL offense was shown?

What violation of the FIFTH AMENDMENT was shown?

What does eminent domain have to do with the police action?

Do you seriously want the Court to rule that the police violated the Fifth Amendment by exercising eminent domain powers to wrongfully take Lech's house for public use???

Just to show I did not make that last question up, or pull it out of my butt, in support of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT states, "82. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation." Yup, the 5th says that. But what private property was taken and for what public use?

Where plaintiff brings suit for an alleged violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause, he must offer proof of a violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause. Nobody exercised eminent domain takings powers and took Lech's house.

While Lech can show that police destroyed his house to the point where it was uninhabitable, what has that to do with the Fifth Amendment takings clause and the exercise of eminent domain powers?

Better yet, why was this case brought in FEDERAL court?

The Circuit Court stated at page 15-16:

We likewise reject the Lechs’ assertion that the police power does not encompass the state’s ability to seize property from an innocent owner. This argument is not without support. See, e.g., Wegner v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 479 N.W.2d 38, 41–42 (Minn. 1991) (holding that where “innocent third party’s property [was] damaged by the police in the course of apprehending a suspect,” such damage was inflicted “for a public use”).

Nevertheless, despite “the considerable appeal of this position as a matter of policy,” we join the Federal Circuit in rejecting this argument as a matter of law. AmeriSource Corp., 525 F.3d at 1154–55 (“[S]o long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to some power other than eminent domain, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The innocence of the property owner does not factor into the determination.” (citation omitted) (citing Bennis, 516 U.S. at 453)).

Finally, contrary to the Lechs’ position, we see no indication that defining the police power broadly enough to encompass the defendants’ actions in this case will signal to police they may “act with impunity to destroy property” or deprive them of “reason to limit the destruction” they cause simply “because they will not bear the burden of the cost and will be absolved of any responsibility” for their actions. Aplt. Br. 31. This argument overlooks other limits placed on the police power. Indeed, even the Lechs concede that the police power is subject to the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957); AmeriSource, 525 F.3d at 1154 (“As expansive as the police power may be, it is not without limit. The limits, however, are largely imposed by the Due Process Clause.”); Lowther v. United States, 480 F.2d 1031, 1033–34 (10th Cir. 1973) (holding that where government “destroyed appellee’s property without having any authority in law to do it,” its actions were “contrary to the [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause of the Fifth Amendment”). And as the defendants point out, police officers who willfully or wantonly destroy property may also be subject to tort liability. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-118(2)(a).

Docket #115 and #116 of the Federal District Court provide some context about the case and the STATE court proceedings.

01/08/2018

#115

ORDER: Defendants' Motion and Brief in Support of Summary Judgment 47 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 48 is DENIED. Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs' seventh claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice insofar as it states a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff's first, second, third, and fourth claims for relief are remanded to the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, where the case was filed as case number 2016CV31378, for further proceedings. Plaintiff's seventh claim for relief is also remanded to the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, insofar as it states a claim under Article II, § 25 of the Colorado Constitution. Defendants' request for attorney's fees is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Preclude Plaintiff's Expert Dan Corsentino 44 , Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony 45 , Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Expert Testimony 77 , and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portion of Defendants' Reply or in the Alternative, Permit Sur-Reply by Plaintiffs 69 are DENIED AS MOOT. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Within 14 days of the entry of this Order, defendants may have their costs by filing a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court. This case is closed. The trial preparation conference set for January 12, 2018 and the jury trial set for January 29, 2018 are VACATED. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/8/18. (pabsec) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

01/09/2018

#116

FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to 115 Order. Entered by the Clerk of the Court on 1/9/2018. (cpear) (Entered: 01/10/2018)

Costs were awarded in favor of Defendants in the amount of $9,733.45. A requested stay of a bond requirement was denied.

nolu and the courts think there are NO limits to what cops can do

Once again, complete, total, utter bullshit. Neither nolu, nor the courts, think that. Try reading the Court opinion which directly contradicts you.

The Circuit Court stated at page 15-16:

Finally, contrary to the Lechs’ position, we see no indication that defining the police power broadly enough to encompass the defendants’ actions in this case will signal to police they may “act with impunity to destroy property” or deprive them of “reason to limit the destruction” they cause simply “because they will not bear the burden of the cost and will be absolved of any responsibility” for their actions. Aplt. Br. 31. This argument overlooks other limits placed on the police power. Indeed, even the Lechs concede that the police power is subject to the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957); AmeriSource, 525 F.3d at 1154 (“As expansive as the police power may be, it is not without limit. The limits, however, are largely imposed by the Due Process Clause.”); Lowther v. United States, 480 F.2d 1031, 1033–34 (10th Cir. 1973) (holding that where government “destroyed appellee’s property without having any authority in law to do it,” its actions were “contrary to the [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause of the Fifth Amendment”). And as the defendants point out, police officers who willfully or wantonly destroy property may also be subject to tort liability. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-118(2)(a).

Nobody TOOK Lech's house. It was damaged, but it was not taken.

Yeah, sure. "Damaged". They blew it to shit, leaving it useless, but it was not taken? Are you freaking serious?

Who the fuck are the idiots who ruled this and why the fuck would anyone with even a smattering of empathy agree with this mockery of justice? Are these black-robed tyrants just assholes or what?

Costs were awarded in favor of Defendants in the amount of $9,733.45.

And yet you claim that is fair

...that was not enough to cover the full value of the home, which was appraised for $580,000.

$9,733.45 for a $580,000 house, sure that seems fair. < /sarcasm >

Anyone who defends this travesty and thinks that this ruling was just is simply insane, lacks the morality to know the difference between right and wrong, or is a dyed in the wool statist prick who worships the almighty State.

This is wrong on so many levels and I don't give a flying fuck how many "legal" opinions you post.

And like the good little fascist you are, you ignored one question: How about if this happened to your house?

the home owner should be compensated or allowed to kill those who destroyed his home.

"allowed to kill" them?

Yeah, sure. "Damaged". They blew it to shit, leaving it useless, but it was not taken? Are you freaking serious?

Who the fuck are the idiots who ruled this and why the fuck would anyone with even a smattering of empathy agree with this mockery of justice? Are these black-robed tyrants just assholes or what?

As usual, you cannot argue the law, so you just make incoherent noise.

The idiots or black robed tyrants were the judge in the U.S. District Court and the panel of judges in the U.S. Circuit Court, who made multiple citations to opinions of the United States Supreme Court which were directly on point.

Nobody has claimed that Lech was not harmed. However, he brought an action under § 1983 which requires him to prove a very specific harm under the 5th Amdt. Lech did not, and cannot, show that he suffered a violation of his 5th Amendment constitutional rights. Neither can you, so you just make noise.

As usual, one sees anarcho-libertarians, such as yourself, advocating for a radical activist court legislating from the bench when such ends would meet your desires. In such cases, you routinely advocate for a progressive activist judge to ignore the existing law and substitute your superior judgment.

As you know, in matters of constitutional law, Randy Barnett, he of the Federalist Society, and foremost libertarian legal scholar, is the font of all libertarian wisdom on constitutional law. Fortunately, I just happen to possess a copy of Randy Barnett's legal text, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, 2008, Aspen Publishers. Therein, Chapter 21 is on the topic of "Taking Private Property for Public Use. At pages 1289-90 one finds the following:

Section A. What Is a "Taking"?

One feature of the Takings Clause is different from the other "substantive" constitutional rights discussed in previous chapters: whereas other provisions prohibit the infringement of a right altogether, the Takings Clause implies (though it does not say) that private property may be taken for public use, but only if just compensation is made. In other words, the Takings Clause stipulates a remedy for a justified deprivation of what was assumed when it was written to be a fundamental right: the right of private property.¹ This in turn places a premium on distinguishing a "taking" of private property for which an owner is entitled to compensation from a normal exercise of the police power that does not ordinarily require compensation—as was found in Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad—and also from a completely unjustified government act that can be enjoined altogether. This is a very tricky business.

¹ See the excerpt from John Locke's Two Treatises of Government with which this casebook began.

The above cited excerpt from John Locke ends with the following quote of Locke's words:

And so whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to bee directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.

Costs were awarded in favor of Defendants in the amount of $9,733.45.

And yet you claim that is fair

...that was not enough to cover the full value of the home, which was appraised for $580,000.

$9,733.45 for a $580,000 house, sure that seems fair. < /sarcasm >

No, stupid. That was not compensation for the house. That was compensation that Plaintiff Lech was ordered to pay to the defendants for the legal fees and costs incurred in defending the bullshit case brought by Lech.

If he appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, Lech should be prepared to pay still more for bringing a suit that has zero merit.

Who cares what some deep state asswipe judge wrote. It was wrong and the home owner should be compensated or allowed to kill those who destroyed his home.

It was cops from Colorado, in Colorado, exercising the police power of the sovereign, to apprehend an armed and fleeing criminal who had barricaded himself in the house and shot at police.

Lech's lawsuit in Federal court relied upon proving a violation of his constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment. Exercising the police power in Colorado did not effect an eminent domain taking, and it did not violate Lech's 5th Amendment constitutional rights.

No, stupid. That was not compensation for the house. That was compensation that Plaintiff Lech was ordered to pay to the defendants for the legal fees and costs incurred in defending the bullshit case brought by Lech.

What the actual fuck? He got nothing to cover the wanton damage done to his home, and to top it off, he had to pay the cops who destroyed his $580,000 house?

Wow! This shit just gets sicker and sicker.

If he appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, Lech should be prepared to pay still more for bringing a suit that has zero merit.

Not surprised to see that you are cheering for him to get fucked over even more by the government.

Now answer the question:: How about if this happened to your house?

" Now answer the question:: How about if this happened to your house? "

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. We know you will not get one.

This, regardless of what Nolu- coo coo or some tyrant in a black dress says, is a total bull shit deal. A true travesty of justice.

Shit like this is what will spawn " street justice ", sadly.

What the actual fuck? He got nothing to cover the wanton damage done to his home, and to top it off, he had to pay the cops who destroyed his $580,000 house?

Yes. Lech did not sue federally for the destruction of his house. Lech sued for the violation of his civil rights under the 5th Amendment.

Lech's case on that basis was meritless and he was ordered to pay for the expenses of the other side.

On January 9, 2018, this Court entered judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, § 15 of the Colorado Constitution. Docket No. 116. The Court also awarded defendants their costs. Id. On February 6, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered a judgment against plaintiffs and in favor of defendants for costs in the amount of $9,733.45.

If he appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, Lech should be prepared to pay still more for bringing a suit that has zero merit.

Not surprised to see that you are cheering for him to get fucked over even more by the government.

I only said what will happen if he proceeds to appeal to the Supreme Court. His suit will still have no merit as a Federal civil rights case. Taking a case to SCOTUS can be expensive.

Now answer the question:: How about if this happened to your house?

If no civil rights violation happened, I would not waste more money on a useless Federal civil rights claim.

Now, you answer the question: What civil rights violation happened under the 5th amendment takings clause?

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-i/sec.-1983/

Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 21 - Civil Rights
Subchapter I - Generally

Sec. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

What the actual fuck? He got nothing to cover the wanton damage done to his home, and to top it off, he had to pay the cops who destroyed his $580,000 house?

Clearly he needed to get a better lawyer.

Shaping a "The cops blew up my house and I should be compensated for the damage by the city claim" as a "they totally destroyed my house, and therefore "took" it, under the 5th Amendment seems like a monumental error. Good lawyering 101 is not making a FEDERAL CASE out of things that can be resolved more reasonably at the state or local level.

First, we're all looking at the house. It's NOT "totally destroyed" nor "completely uninhabitable". It's not filled with termites and wasn't underwater. The roof, walls and foundation are all obviously intact. Some windows need to be replaced, so walls patched up, and some personal property was wrecked. Insurance should cover most of that.

To try to make a claim for TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE HOUSE, as a "taking" is absurd. Obviously that's not going to work, because it's not a taking. If your neighbor's a creep and hits your car with his, and you rush to the police charge him with arson, you're not going to win.

Federal cases are expensive. Of course if you bring a federal case, legal costs are going to be high. Of course if you bring a federal case, claiming grave constitutional issues in a case like this, your legal fees are going to be even higher, because you're going to experience a lot of setbacks (as you should, because your assertion is looney).

Of course if you take what should be a tortious damage discussion at the local/state level and make a federal takings case out of it, you're going to ultimately lose, and be out all of that money for litigation.

The lawsuit is frivolous.

Here is what a rational, sane person who wants to get reimbursement for some damage does.

(1) Give up any dreams of a massive payout. The police damaged your house to get a bad guy. This is not a lottery win for you. Your house is not "totally destroyed", and the city/state/feds didn't "take" it from you. GET REAL.

(2) You have really suffered damage here, so properly assess what that is. Get the contractors in there to tell you what fixing the windows and walls will cost. You have the opportunity to make some changes too: walls have holes in them. Now is the time to take some walls out if you wanted to. Tally up your personal property destroyed and value it fairly.

(3) Submit your claim to your insurance company and get the repairs approved. This objectively establishes the amount of your losses. Get the construction crews fixing your house.

(4) Take good photos and films that really show the damage and its extent. Don't exaggerate. You didn't win the lottery. Everything that is covered by insurance, you don't need to be reimbursed for. If the insurance company wants to bring a claim against the police for the amounts they have to pay out, they will evaluate whether they should or not. And if they do, it's a cinch that they're not going to make an extravagant federal law takings claim, because this is police battle damage, not a "taking".

(5) The insurance company has mostly made you whole and paid for your house repairs. What are you out? $10,000 deductible? Maybe $20,000 of personal effects. THAT is your number. THAT is what you have ACTUALLY suffered. So THAT is the number you take to the city, the state, the police ombudsman - THAT is what you're seeking to be made whole on: the uninsured portion of damages. You're not on a crusade to "make the police pay!", or to make a political statement. You just want the reimbursement of some uninsured damage.

(6) You might consult with a lawyer, but you certainly don't lead off with a lawyer. You're looking to get a reasonable reimbursment here, not a fight with the police or the city or state. That's why the whole "takings" claim is so crazy. Looking at that damaged house, and the fact that it was torn apart by police trying to blast out a maggot, ANY judge or jury, or ombudsman, is going to have sympathy, and if YOU are a sympathetic person, just trying to be made whole, reasonable compensation will be found. Nobody is going to dig in against you if you come in that posture. Just look at your house!

(7) But look at your house. If you come in there like a stormtrooper claiming it's a "total loss!" and "uninhabitable!", anybody can see that's not true. Now you're a gold-digger. Start lawyering up and waving around federal claims, and you're an asshat besides.

And you lose your case and don't get your money, and end up worse off than if you have started. The government is reasonable about mundane claims made by reasonable people. A house got damaged by local cops. This is not a federal case. That's what insurance is for, mostly. Some amount of compensation would have been offered to cover the uninsured damage. And nobody would have spent anything on lawyers.

Instead, the guy made it a federal case. Bad move.

Clearly he needed to get a better lawyer.

I was thinking he had a better case against his own lawyer than attempting to proceed to Scotus.

First, we're all looking at the house. It's NOT "totally destroyed" nor "completely uninhabitable".

In court, it was described as uninhabitable. Uninhabitable does not necessarily mean unrepairable. I question the $580,000 valuation for the 2,000+ sq ft house seen in the pictures. It sort of gives the appearance of a 16x80 single wide on top of a one story foundation. It is not clear that it is unrepairable or that repairs would cost $580,000.

Doc 115, ORDER (8 Jan 2018) at 6:

As a result of the police actions used during the standoff, plaintiffs’ home was rendered uninhabitable. Docket No. 48 at 3, ¶ 11. Plaintif fs ultimately demolished the home and built a new one in its place. Docket No. 47 at 14, ¶¶ 60-61. Greenwood Village offered plaintiffs $5,000 to help with temporary living expenses, but it denied any liability for the incident and declined to provide further compensation. Docket No. 48 at 3, ¶ 13; Docket No. 53 at 7, ¶ 10.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/433038596/Lech-v-Jackson-CODC-16-cv-1958-01-Aug-2016-Doc-4-First-Amended-Complaint

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/433039086/Lech-v-Jackson-CODC-16-cv-1958-08-Jan-2018-Doc-115-ORDER

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/433039180/Lech-v-Jackson-CODC-16-cv-1958-19-May-2018-Doc-131-ORDER-Denying-Motion-to-Stay-Judgment

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/433039334/Lech-v-Jackson-18-1051-10th-Cir-29-Oct-2019-ORDER-and-JUDGMENT

- - - - - - - - - -