Re:Rand Paul says no-knock warrants 'should be forbidden' in...
by gamblor956 on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @03:38AM
(#23232285)
That is the right decision...the officers should not be sued for the alleged theft because they were seizing property pursuant to a warrant.
The police department or city should be sued for it, if the warrant were unlawfully obtainedor if items seized during the search allegedly went missing. And they were sued.
The ruling you are complaining about was specifically about removing the officers as individual defendants from the civil case. The city of Fresno is still a defendant in the case. It is simply the individual officers that are not.
On another note--the difference in values in that case is due to how the police recorded the coins into evidence. When physical money is taken into evidence, they record the stated value of the money (i.e., a quarter is recorded as a quarter...even if it is a rare quarter worth $1million on the collectibles market, since it's not the police's job to get an appraisal for items taken into evidence). The plaintiffs valued the collectibles at their alleged market values.
The police department or city should be sued for it, if the warrant were unlawfully obtainedor if items seized during the search allegedly went missing. And they were sued.
The ruling you are complaining about was specifically about removing the officers as individual defendants from the civil case. The city of Fresno is still a defendant in the case. It is simply the individual officers that are not.
On another note--the difference in values in that case is due to how the police recorded the coins into evidence. When physical money is taken into evidence, they record the stated value of the money (i.e., a quarter is recorded as a quarter...even if it is a rare quarter worth $1million on the collectibles market, since it's not the police's job to get an appraisal for items taken into evidence). The plaintiffs valued the collectibles at their alleged market values.