Police Destroy Innocent Man’s Home During Arrest, Court Finds Town Not Liable

Joe: 106.7 WIZN. It’s Rush, “Working Man,” her Guns N’ Roses, Mr. Brad Stone before that. I’m Joe Vega here with you on your Wednesday rocking ride home. Earlier, I was talking about a story coming out of Colorado, where the police basically destroyed a person’s home trying to get to an armed suspect who is, in no way, related to the person who owned the home. And that person tried to get some compensation for the destruction, and the federal courts just ruled against him. And so I thought it’d be a good subject to talk about with my friend Ben Barry from Martin, Harding & Mazzotti. You can call him at any time at 1800-LAW-1010 or go online to 1800law1010.com. Ben, how are you doing?

Ben: Joe, how are you doing?

Joe: So, Ben, I know you know about this case, and I guess my questions is, how do you feel about this?

Ben: Well, I think I feel the same way that general public feels about the decision. It seems to be very wrong when a municipal body, like a police force, you know, does something to damage someone’s property and does not compensate them. There’s a difference between the way I feel, the way I feel about the court decision. I think the court had it right here…

Joe: Interesting.

Ben: …that as a policing body, the police should not be worried about having to compensate people for things that get destroyed when they are pursuing a suspect or a criminal.

Joe: An armed suspect, in this case, too.

Ben: Sure. Now, I think there’s a lot in the gray area between this police force pursuing someone who is alleged to have stolen a couple goods, maybe worth $25 from Walmart and whether the force that they were using, the destruction that they caused was reflective of the type of crime that was committed. And so from a sort of practical standpoint, I don’t agree with what the police force did to apprehend the criminal given what the crime was alleged to have been. I think the court was right to say police should not be worried about property damage when they’re pursuing a felon or pursuing, you know, someone who’s committed a misdemeanor.

Joe: Now, that’s an interesting point.

Ben: When the police are in hot pursuit of a suspect, you don’t want them hemming and hawing about the type of damage that would occur if they actually have to, you know, break through a wall or plow through a car, so to speak, to apprehend a criminal. They wanna keep the public safe, and they need to do what is necessary, you know, within their reason to get that particular criminal or suspect. And again, in this particular case, I think there’s quite a significant amount of effort that was used by the police force to apprehend this person that caused property damage versus the type of criminal this person was.

Joe: Right.

Ben: He was armed, he was presumed to be dangerous, or he was alleged to be armed, presumed to be dangerous. So I think, in those circumstances, you have to do what you have to do to apprehend the person.

Joe: All right. Well, there you go. Thanks a lot, Ben. Ben Barry from Martin, Harding & Mazzotti.

Ben: Great talking to you, Joe. Thank you.

Joe: Again, you can call Ben at any time at 1800-LAW-1010 or go online to 1800law1010.com. Mel Allen taking over from here. He’s got music from Golden Earring and The Eagles next.