Let's see now.... police hear that a lady has firearms, enter her home without a warrant, confiscate 13 guns, find out that she owns them all legally... and refuse to return them unless she gets a court order. So she files suit....
Why can't they learn that in a situation like this, give them back immediately and hope things quiet down.
Update: there certainly is a 1983 cause of action here. Entering a residence without a warrant, and probably without probable cause (a report that someone owns guns, where they can be owned legally, hardly gives probable cause), Not to mention seizing property, refusing to give a prompt hearing on its return, and indeed putting the burden on the owner to sue for its return.
Because the are idiots.
Posted by: Josh A. Kruschke at August 30, 2011 09:42 PM
Because they won't lose their jobs, or pensions, or personally be personally held liable for this mistake.
Its just taxpayer money, why should they care?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 31, 2011 03:17 AM
I am waiting to hear they they were "accidentally" destroyed and so can not be returned.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 31, 2011 06:27 AM
How is this not a Section 1983 or 1985 violation? As for why they haven't been returned, as somebody speculates in the comments on the story, there's a good chance the cops don't HAVE all of them now, that some of them were taken home by some of the cops.
Posted by: James at August 31, 2011 07:58 AM
Forget it, Jake...It's Cleveland.
...whaddaya expect? The snarky "journo" tries to portray her as potentially dangerous to the pizza guy, or a zombie-apocalyse nutcase...
She's a lady veteran with a lawful interest in maintaining proficiency with a variety of defensive means. Nothing odd or scary, nothing I wouldn't have in my own "arsenal-cache".
Posted by: kalashnikat at August 31, 2011 02:45 PM
Just more bullies with a badge.
Posted by: Jim K at August 31, 2011 07:32 PM
This kind of stuff happens frequently here in Rhode Island. As someone else said, the LEOs in question don't care if they are sued. It takes years to work its way through the courts and its not their money.
Posted by: Jim at September 1, 2011 12:49 PM
What do you expect when you believe that the word reasonable is part of the 2nd!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at September 2, 2011 10:21 AM
Wow, this is particularly brazen, in light of the fact that they went into her home without a warrant. Who made the decision that this was okay?
Posted by: Assman at September 2, 2011 10:54 AM
A suit under Sec. 1983 would pierce any immunity the officers claimed because under color of state law they deprived her of her property and her rights. One might even claim that they conspired to do so.
Posted by: Gary Saffer at September 4, 2011 10:29 AM
didn't the senate pass a law that no warrant is needed , placing a citizen in harms way by allotting an ignorant officer t decide if there would is probable cause I sure hope that the is attorney kicks butt in the courtroom Trouble is the organised white collar crime of the DOJ are hard to defeat the use each and every legal loop hole to justify their lawless behaviour or like one commentator said they make it disappear? Is there an update on this case?
Posted by: angel at December 5, 2011 07:20 AM