Ammo For Sale

« « Saigas (kind of) Already Illegal in Virginia | Home | More Michigan OC » »

Police mistakenly raid law professor

Vows revenge:

“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.”

21 Responses to “Police mistakenly raid law professor”

  1. alan Says:

    Interesting that a law professor doesn’t appear to understand qualified immunity.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    well, there is that. but i like his spirit.

  3. Nate Says:

    I’ve always been cloudy on qualified immunity. What does it cover, and what does it not cover?

  4. HardC0rps Says:

    there’s always respondent superior. Cities have more and more liability these days as found by courts.

  5. mikee Says:

    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.

  6. Stretch Says:

    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.

  7. Jake Says:

    Interesting that a law professor doesn’t appear to understand qualified immunity.

    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.

  8. DirtCrashr Says:

    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.

  9. Lumpy Says:

    Lets see if he’s any good. I remember a D.C. lawyer that sued for millions when a dry cleaner lost his pants.

  10. Bubblehead Les Says:

    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?

  11. Robert Says:

    Hey, Uncle gets a hat-tip from Cato Institute!!

  12. Ellen Says:

    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.

  13. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    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.

  14. treefroggy Says:

    “who pledged to sue until “I see [the agents’] houses sold at auction and their kids’ college tuitions taken away from them.”


  15. That Guy Says:

    Re: What you call someone who has been mugged by the police?


    I refer you to the work of Radley Balko “libertarianism happens to people”

  16. mariner Says:

    Maybe he can sue SF a little deeper into bankruptcy.

    Too bad he won’t be able to bankrupt the cops involved.

  17. JKB Says:

    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.

  18. rickn8or Says:

    This might be the case we’ve been waiting for…

  19. Robert Says:

    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…..

  20. Lyle Says:

    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.

  21. Smince Says:

    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.