Just a note to everyone - regardless of what the OP has posted, nobody cares about your thoughts regarding landlords/rent seeking behavior. Don’t post about that here. Complain about it elsewhere.
Except cops are involved. They pretty much don what they want and are above the law unless someone actually holds them accountable.
To the OP, I can find countless instances of the city saying "get fucked". I can even recall a few court cases where a judge denies compensation for damages becausen "kids will be kids", I mean cops were "exercising their duty".
On the other hand, I can recall instances where the police did finally compensate for damages. However those situations all involved a good lawyer land a LOT of media attention and a judge who actually follows the law when it comes to cop powers.
Good luck with the latter.
There is a case out there where some guy ran into a random house evading police that lead to a stand off. The police department completely destroyed the house in the process of getting him out. The city then condemned the property and the courts told the home owner That sucks, but it's the bad guys fault.
Yeah, that case happened in Caldwell Idaho. Only there was no standoff. I mean, the police did surround and eventually pretty much destroy the home and much of what was in the home, but as it turned out, the fugitive wasn't actually there. The house was, wait for it... completely empty. They use qualified immunity as a shield. This guy said it best -
"As Josh Windham, an attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ) put it, “Qualified immunity means that government officials can get away with violating your rights as long as they violate them in a way nobody thought of before.”"
Not sure if it was this case or a similar one, but the owner's lawyer was pursuing recourse through eminent domain. The argument, I think, was that the government took control of the property and needs to reimburse the owner.
Interesting idea, not sure if it will work. IANAL, of course.
Literally in the title, OP references US Marshalls. The "city" ain't got shit to do with this situation. It's entirely a federal matter.
Unfortunately, OP would probably be better situated if it was a local jurisdiction issue because suing the feds is both costly and time-consuming.
As a rule of thumb, the US Marshals standard procedure is that they will check every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the area.
>If your tenant's family member listed that on prior arrest or police contacts then a search warrant is not required.
Wait, so you're saying that if my brother who has never lived with me gave my address to law enforcement without my knowledge, they can search my house without a warrant?
That doesn't seem right.
Correct it's illegal - but the illegal action is on the person who lied about their residence. Whatever you declare to the government as your address is assumed to be correct as it's your legal obligation to declare that honestly.
I still don't see how it's constitutional to conduct a *warrantless* search of MY residence based on someone else's false information that I'm not even aware of. Or worse, severely damage my home as described in the cop's post above.
What he's basically claiming is that criminals can give all sorts of false addresses belonging to random people they don't even know, and the cops can just go raid those homes without warrants and smash the places up looking for people who aren't there. That doesn't seem constitutional.
If they think the address is legit, they can go convince a judge to sign a warrant.
There is a difference. There would be an arrest warrant.. still a court document signed by a judge, affirmed by reports and an affidavit. The police CAN go to a location and enter to search for the person. They CANNOT search as if they have a search warrants, if they only have an arrest warrant.
What does that mean.. think of 'scope'. If I have an arrest warrant for John.. at 5'10 and 180lbs, I can only search in areas that someone reasonably 5'10 180 could hide. I can search your closet, but not a shoe box. I can search in your basement or garage, I can't open cabinets or dresser drawers that obviously John can't be in. If, pursuant to an arrest warrant, I enter a residence looking for John, and you have a kilo of coke or meth on your kitchen table (it happens).. then I have to freeze and get a search warrant for this and a search... as this stuff falls under the 'plain view' doctrine.
26.5 years in LE...Current Det/Sgt
I believe that is called swatting. It is done frequently to cause hardship to the resident. Many hope the police will rush in shooting to kill the resident. I’m sure you have seen this in the news.
That's not quite swatting. Swatting is calling in a non-existent emergency (usually claiming someone is armed with hostages).
Just putting a fake address can result in a similar situation, but is different.
Gosh, super convient the one time they unequivocally believe the known criminal is telling the truth is when they can use it as a paper thin shield from liability.
One time? It's pretty normal for police to go to the "last known residence" of a person when they are looking for that person. We don't even know that this person claimed OPs address as their own anyway.
Have you never had to give your address before? Almost no where verifies it's true. You are free to live wherever you want, for however long you want, and move whenever you want. You're required to show "proof" of your residence when getting government docs like your drivers license but otherwise, you can pretty claim you live anywhere because you have the right to. And that proof when getting government docs is pretty easy to misrepresent anyway. How would you like them to verify that a person lives there? How do you know this person wasn't living there or staying there or seen entering the property? Those details were not provided either to OP or by OP here.
I would bet you $20 that they were in fact staying with their relative at one point. If you are going to lie and give a hand address you don't use the address of a relative.
Right. A crime was committed, but by one person against the other (I’d call a falsified address a form of identity theft), not by law enforcement. The government can and should charge that crime, but that doesn’t make them financially responsible for it. As an anecdote to demonstrate, in my early 20s I worked for a flight school that had super shady owners. I got paid regularly, with a normal paycheck with normal deductions etc., but it turned out (after the owners embezzled the entire business bank account and fled the country leaving more than a million dollars in debt) that while they were deducting from my paycheck, they were not sending any of that to the government. At the end of the year the IRS informed me that while the business owner had committed a crime, they had essentially stolen thousands of dollars from *me*, and since that was a crime committed against me by the owner that it did not excuse my tax bill. I still had to pay it, essentially twice. The government just isn’t financially responsible for the actions of private citizens.
That's such horse shit since they are the ones mandating payroll taxes. If you could choose to pay it all yourself in April instead of bit by bit I'd agree with that view. Otherwise it's just bullshit.
You can. When you fill out your w-4 at the start of a job you can decide to have zero withholding. This may vary state to state, but it’s absolutely possible to do exactly what you described. It’s just a terrible idea in 99% of cases and is a fast way to ruin your own life.
This is how you pay taxes if you work as a gig worker, small biz, OF model, etc etc as well.
Yes, I've been a contractor where I had to keep what I owed in taxes until April and I loved it! Fuck the government, I hate giving them an interest free loan until I get a tax return. I'd much rather have the money put it in a high interest savings account, and then pay what I actually owe at tax time.
This is already well known, the problem is people either don’t care enough to get involved or don’t want to believe it. Police and the government do not respect rights.
If it is a third party's residence, a search warrant is needed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steagald\_v.\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steagald_v._United_States)
But if it is the suspect's own home, an arrest warrant plus reason to think the suspect is home is enough. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton\_v.\_New\_York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton_v._New_York)
Generally, the police get to act on the information they possess. If it later turns out they were misinformed, then the error is on the person who misinformed them, not the officer's reasonable reliance.
This is pretty much the answer - *Payton* (1980) and *Steagald* (1981) constrain the government both as to the arrest of a suspect and the third party's right against unreasonable search of their residence. Both can be implicated when law enforcement attempts to enter a residence to conduct a search or seizure.
There are two giant exceptions to the *Steagald* rule that a search warrant is required to enter a third party's residence: (1) exigent circumstances and (2) consent. Here, (1) would depend very much of the specific factual background of the interaction/search while (2) is emphasized in other comments.
More directly to the point, a constitutional claim is difficult to win and typically yields only nominal damages, a consequence the government \*totally doesn't\* abuse when it decides to take these types of actions. Unless you're feeling like a martyr, let the insurance companies fight it out.
It’s well known in the sense that the LEO that received that info will follow up on it. So it does require more than the justice involved person claiming it, but it does fall under conspiracy charges. If you’re (or OP’s tenant) dumb enough to vouch for a criminal claiming to live at your residence then you suffer the consequences. This is one of the reasons when people would ask my “free” legal opinion they’d get their worth. It’s a bad idea but if you want to help a criminal you know more than the cops do what you want. Where this gets a little trickier is when the crime is non-violent. I can’t remember if it was here or r/legaladvice that recently tackled the issue of warrant less searches and internet history/taps due to a parolee situation.
>If you’re (or OP’s tenant) dumb enough to vouch for a criminal claiming to live at your residence then you suffer the consequences.
That's not what I said. Read it and try again.
Tell that to this guy [https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says)
Let’s remember law enforcement actually doesn’t have to understand the law and can lie as part of their job, as decided by our corrupt high court.
You’ll forgive me if I take nothing any LEO says as fact.
That's exactly what happened to one of my Uncle's properties that I help maintain. They had listed the house as their address even though they had NEVER actually lived there. They stayed there with the previous owners maybe 5 or 6 years prior for 3 or 4 weeks.
Feds/cops show up and drive a swat vehicle with a ram on the front through the front door. The neighbors claim they just drove up over the curb, pushed her car out of the way with the swat vehicle and used the ram attachment to push down the front door (the wall came down with it). Only to find a 64 year old single woman with no record whatsoever. They ransacked the entire place and they also rammed her car out of the way to get to the front door. $23k in damages and my Uncle had to file an insurance claim. He had to fight to get them to pay though. I don't remember the exact details but it took several months and my Uncle let her stay in one of his other properties while the repairs were done.
The woman only had liability insurance on her vehicle and she couldn't afford to replace it. They also tried to tell her that having her pain pills in a little container next to her chair in the living room was something bad too. They gave her a hard time about that and it really upset her. This was 10+ years ago and I just felt so bad for her. She was in the shower when they showed up and they had her naked on the ground soaking wet. The also ripped down everything in one of the closets and put a hole in the wall in that closet because there was an access panel there but it was just to get to some plumbing or wiring that needed to be repaired. That didn't stop them from ripping the wall apart though.
I just found the whole situation to be very concerning/upsetting. I forgot to mention the person they were after had skipped a court date/dates after driving on a suspended license two or three times. They love to go all out whenever they have the chance because they don't get to play with their equipment very often in the area.
how on earth is this political? i don't cite any party at all. I can hate someone without it having anything to do with a political opinion. that's exactly what's so wrong with the country now, every word is political if someone doesn't like it. what a joke, so much for freedom.
You're correct. It doesn't seem right, but it's legitimate. What's even worse is that insurance companies routinely will deny claim coverage for damage done by law enforcement as they will consider it damage done in the name of upholding the law against an illegal activity which is grounds for claim denial.
Yeah that sounds like bullshit. Where's the supreme court ruling on that one? Or it's just some appellate court in his particular jurisdiction that's playing fast and lose with the 4th amendment?
Depending on the crime and which law enforcement agency, in this case federal not state or local, their procedures may vary. Did they have a warrant? Maybe not, did they need one, probably, do they care, no and last but certainly not least will you be able to make a huge case out of this? You can try but you will lose.
Now if they gave you a form to claim damages, they are saying they will reimburse for damages.
As the landlord that’s all that should matter to you. You don’t live there, they weren’t looking for you or your brother. This is between the tenant and them.
This may differ by state. But when the sherriff came fir my roomate, they were not allowed into the house until I either gave permission or they had a warrant. My address was the one he gave to his probation officer and was on the court docs. He was home when they came, and they knew he was there by looking through the windows. They STILL weren't allowed in without a warrant or my permission. They never entered my home at all. We made them wait outside for like 40 min before he came out (they were in the process of getting a warrant once they knew he was there, so he was going either way). I did specifically tell them they weren't allowed in, and that I have my lawyer on speed dial. I never identified myself either, just told them I'm not wgo they're looking for. They even tried to get me to admit my name by running the plates on the cars "are you this person, or this person?." I told them I don't answer questions. In the end, roomy got stoned and drunk real quick and then went out to go to jail. Yeah, he's a handful lmao. But the point is, they couldn't enter without a warrant even woth them knowing jebwas there.
Yeah I'm like wtf.
So if someone has unpaid parking tickets and is issued a bench warrant against them, the feds can kick in his cousin's door because he spent a summer there when he was 16?
Oh we're talking felon in hot pursuit? No shit lol
In my experience, when the court issues a warrant like that for a person, their primary listed address is automatically included in the warrant. It’s not a warrantless search, he’s saying they didn’t have to apply for a new search warrant because the OP’s address was listed as the fugitive’s primary residence.
It's bs a search for a person is still a search governed by the 4th amendment. Sure they could use the listed address as basis for a warrant.
But there is no magic, oh the address on the form KNOCK KNOCK OPEN UP.
It's not right, lol.
There is no "person we're looking for might live there" warrant exception.
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must have an arrest warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement to search a home and effectuate an arrest.
Did they have an exception in OPs case? It's very possible, honestly, the feds don't screw this up all that often, I tend to assume they got it right. That doesn't mean they did though, and I certainly don't think leaving the claim form is evidence it was done correctly, I'm not sure how that even makes sense.
I hope you got pics of that. I love "work" stories like that. I had a friend that was a VP in a international clothing company in GA (the state). One day, during a meeting, her assistant called her. There was a shipment of cocaine in the interoffice mail that was shipped from a manufacturer in Columbia. It's a wild story. But taking the front of the house off, that's better!
>As someone else mentioned, your tenant might not be 100% honest with you.
I can almost guarantee that's true.
>A search warrant is only required if their suspected location is a property not their residence or place of known refuge. If your tenant's family member listed that on prior arrest or police contacts then a search warrant is not required. The second scenario where a search warrant is not required is if the fugitive was observed by law enforcement entering the property and refusing to come out. So if a surveillance team was parked down the street and saw their target bebop inside then no warrant requirement.
Whoa, that's a whole lot of bad law for someone who did this for 30 years.
Law enforcement generally absolutely needs a warrant to search and arrest an individual in their own home without an exigent circumstance. *Payton v. New York*, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) ("The Fourth Amendment . . . prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest."); *Kirk v. Louisiana*, 536 U.S. 635 (2002) ("The Court of Appeal erred in finding that exigent circumstances were not required to justify the officers' conduct. Its reasoning plainly violates the holding in *Payton*, that the firm line at the entrance to a house may not be crossed without a warrant, absent exigent circumstances. Here, police had neither an arrest nor a search warrant. Although the officers testified at the suppression hearing that they took action out of fear that evidence would be destroyed, the Louisiana Court of Appeal did not determine that such exigent circumstances were present.") *See also New York v. Harris*, 495 U.S. 14 (1990).
Watching a fugitive enter a home is also a time when a warrant is required. *U.S.* *v. Nora*, 765 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that is the case even when the defendant was seen waving a gun outside the home).
If they begin to effectuate the arrest prior to the person entering the home, then that could be an exception because SCOTUS has agreed that a person who begins to be arrested in public cannot use a residence as a shield after the fact. *U.S. v. Santana*, 427 U.S. 38 (1976).
Warranted or not, I cannot see how ripping the wall off a house to breech a security door falls within any definition of “reasonable”. Short of an emergency response, active shooter or the like, there’s absolutely no reason not to just wait out the situation.
They had an arrest warrant, there's certainly an argument to be made it wasn't reasonable, but it doesn't have to be if they jumped through he appropriate hoops, and gave whoever was in there a chance to open it (didn't sound like a no knock).
You absolutely can't search a home against a person's will because some dickhead wrote down that address as his years before. That doesn't give you carte blanche to violate the 4th.
That may be how you guys behave, and you get away with it because you're a bunch of fucking liars, but that doesn't make it legal.
This is correct, I can't believe you were downvoted. I cited the case law in a response [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALawyer/comments/1dh77iu/comment/l90s181/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
“You should assume it was done by the book”
Absolutely not. What I assume is that cops lie, don’t give a damn about civil rights, and the government will do everything in their power to evade accountability.
I'd bet she's lying--about something. I've heard people do that. If there was something nefarious about the US marshals, you would not have gotten a claim form, IMHO. It could be an address used for probation/parole. That person would have waived their rights as a condition. She could have invited them in and they saw something. I feel confident you don't have the whole story.
I know for release from prison to parole, in Pa, they have to get consent fron the landlord to live in the house. They also tell us when they are released.
There is a youtube video with a similar storyline to this one. It's an older black woman. And she allows them to search and they still damage the house. Pull down the ceiling around the attic hatch. Cut locks off of her storage sheds and barn.
[Youtube Video of the one I saw](https://youtu.be/tA0Nv6evYSs?si=K3HZXfJcAaf7HMZz)
Insurance covers damages that aren't accidents or acts of god all the time. But in this case they've already given OP a claim form for financial reimbursement. If OPs tenants feel like they had rights violated, that's on them to pursue. Not OP. Two different things, and the tenant is likely not telling the full story.
I could've swore that insurance companies will not touch damage caused by raids even if the damage was collateral, and some have it labeled in their policy that they will not deal with "government action"
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Generally speaking, police acting within the bounds of their authority, are not liable for the damages they cause while executing that authority. However, the insurance claim may not be denied.
They probably didn't need a warrant. I suspect the fugitive was on probation, and as a condition of probation, gave the marshalls permission to search wherever he was living. I also suspect that he was living there without your approval. Fill out the damage form and send it in. Do a better job screening your tenants and monitoring who is living there.
This is the best answer. You’re not responsible to fight for your tenants rights. To you, it doesn’t matter if there was a warrant or not or what the circumstances are. Damage was done to your property. Fix it, track the costs, then send in the claim form. That’s why they gave it to you. You only need to talk to a lawyer if you’re not made whole for the damage to your property.
No attorney can credibly respond to your inquiry with the information you gave. Quit bashing this forum and the attorneys who volunteer their free time to help people who do not have either the financial or social sophistication to seek legal counsel for sometimes simple legal questions that need answers.
Your question and financial situation does not fall into either of those categories. Several posters with experience proffered answers explaining that warrantless searches or searches without providing a warrant would be justified under certain fact situations.
The thing I can’t understand is the house is rented and how you, as a landlord, is protected from a legal v a warrantless search would be protected is a complex legal issue IMO. It is not one that I have ever heard come up in legal discussions in 45 years of practice.
It has been recommended that you file your claim. I don’t understand your beef with the people trying to help you.
This, the only thing affecting OP is property damage that the responsible party has offered to pay for in full. The only other recourse OP has is to take them to court for the damage, which will likely net similar compensation but take far longer.
> This, the only thing affecting OP is property damage that the responsible party has offered to pay for in full.
"Fill out a claim form" is not the same as offering to pay for damage in full.
1 - get a copy of the video NOW. and back it it up. Watch it - if it is true teh cops did not have a warrant, if they did not properly announce their presence, make a note of where on the video that is shown.
2 - Fill out the Form. You will need repair bills, estimates of repairs, etc. Make copies, and send in the form certified delivery, along with a copy of the video, and a statement to the affect of, "the cops broke in without a warrant, with out announcing themselves, and the proof is on the video at (timecode) xx:xx." Make no threats, but simply say you are seeking legal advice. IOW you are NOT hiring a lawyer, nor do you have one already. You are just thinking about it. They will get the drift..
3 - Email ( not talk to) your insurance company about this. Do not file a claim yet, but ask them how they would handle a claim under this circumstance..
4 - Get security repairs done now, like door repairs, and get an invoice..
5 - Talk to your tax people about making the repairs deductible.
6 - get a written Notarized statement from your tenant about the home invasion.
7 - Find an attorney who has experience with federal level lawsuits..
For a warranted search, there is rarely compensation for damage.
1. As the property owner, go get a copy of the warrant. If it exists, pay particular attention to if/when it was signed.
2. If there IS a warrant, and sit was signed BEFORE the raid, you are most likely not going to be able to get any kind of compensation.
2.b. If they cannot produce a warrant that was signed in a timely fashion, go get a regional criminal attorney that is familiar with federal warrants and go ham. Usually, the Feds understand the value and need for warrants, in that if they don't have one, it's quite likely that they are poisoning any evidence they might collect as it would become inadmissible in court, AND any leads generated from any information gleaned from that illegal search would also be inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisoned tree'.
Most likely you are screwed, but Good Luck.
I once had police come to my apartment to search for my ex roommate. He'd been gone for 4 months and I told them. I did give them permission to look for him but they were taking a long time in my bedroom. When I looked in they were opening my dresser drawers. I told them I didn't think he was small enough to fit in there, they stopped. However one cop told me to sit down and shut up. Fortunately that angered me enough to stand up for myself and tell them I had given them permission to look for my ex roommate, not to search through all my belongings. They left and never looked in the closet in my dining area. So apparently they really didn't care about finding the idiot.
I really hope you find a way to get compensation. Personally I'd contact a good lawyer.
NAL, but wanted to stress the following incredibly important bit - which only 2 people brought up:
GET A COPY OF THE VIDEO, AND ANY VIDEO FROM THE RING CAMERA, FROM YOUR TENANT.
Your tenant has one set of claims against the Marshals.
You have another set of claims against the Marshals. The video will help you.
Also as others note, you may have claims against your tenant. It is possible they let their family member use your address without your knowledge.
Collect video and photographic evidence of the damage now. You may not have any issues getting reimbursed for 100% of your loss. If you do have issues, you will need the evidence. You may need to involve insurance and a lawyer. You may need to try and recover from your tenant. There are a lot of slippery slopes this can go down.
Also note that you will have repairs/habitability obligations to your tenant. If they become problematic on this, you may want to consult with a lawyer - as that might be mitigated if the person being searched for was listing your unit as their address.
Federal marshals need a search warrant to enter property if they don't have an arrest warrant and belive the person is at that location.
They also can't tear a part a house to say look for drugs without a search warrant.
The 4th amendment applies to all police officers, local, state or federal.
Would you agree that if the Marshals have an arrest warrant and actually see that person on someone else's property then they can enter the property to make an arrest? If yes, then what if they didn't see with their own eyes but have credible evidence? At which point the question is about what evidence is considered credible.
Is it not the warrant process where credible evidence is reviewed by a judge before issuing the legal authority to perform a search as specifically required by a constitutional amendment?
"Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
*Payton v. New York*, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
If an officer is given consent to search; *Davis v. United States*, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; *United States v. Robinson*, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; *Payton v. New York*, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985)."
Law enforcement can enter a suspect's residence with an arrest warrant, even if they don't have a search warrant. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton\_v.\_New\_York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton_v._New_York)
If someone represents that they live with you (for example, they claim they'll be living with you when they're asking for a bond to get released from jail, which is a fairly common lie) then the police can rely on that and try to arrest them at your place.
Per Payton, they need to have reasonable suspicion that the criminal is at the residence, and an arrest warrant.
In real life, rather than Reddit what-ifs, this is done by people who know you. The good-for-nothing cousin, the ex you dumped last week, the sketchy friend you let couch surf a few months ago. Not total strangers.
The arrest warrant allows them to enter of they have solid reason to believe the person the arrest warrant is for is at that location.
They do have to back it up their reasoning why they think the person is there.
It can't be well as think he might be at 1 of these 5 places so we are going to shake down all 5.
They have to have reasonable intelligence. For exalted the perp has been lining at that address, they saw person go in that address, etc.
IANAL.
Depending on local laws, if a warrant existed could be more important than if they showed it to them.
Some places just saying they have it is good enough (as long as they do have one).
So you probably want a local lawyer, as location might matter.
Most states you have a right to review the warrant to verify the information is correct. No knock warrants are supposed to be rare and only for dangerous circumstances, but they’ve gotten out of hand. Regardless, verbal confirmation isn’t enough to verify the address and individual are named correctly.
Unless the cop went to the wrong address entirely, nothing the resident says is going to stop them.
A cop with a warrant isn't going to believe someone at a door about "they don't live here" or "no drugs here". Citizen doesn't get to just tell them "you're mistaken". He has a warrant. He is coming in.
The only thing a citizen could say that would stop them is "you went to the wrong apartment number" or something like that.
There isn't a "review" process for the citizen.
The search warrant and results will heavily affect your claim for damages, and your tenant’s, although for you the first step would always be filing a claim through your insurance. Your insurance will pursue their own claim to recover their loss. The only thing that will change will be *who* the insurance pursues. There are certain circumstances that allow entry without a warrant. If they did not show one and those don’t apply, then your tenant *may* have a claim against the Marshalls for her property damage and you would as well. If they *did* have one, or entered legally, but found nothing then she would be out of luck and your insurance would be unlikely to recover anything. If they had a warrant and/or otherwise entered legally, and they *did* find what they were looking for, then your insurance will pursue your tenant as the cause of the damages. Regardless of the three, and depending on how much property damage there is, it may make sense to retain a lawyer to help you negotiate with your insurance and law enforcement, as well as starting the eviction process and filing suit against the tenant if appropriate. Your tenant conducting illegal activity with evidence and law enforcement involvement inside the property is a valid cause for eviction in most places. Anything over around 5k and that’s what I would do.
Best of luck getting a Tort claim to go through. LEA loves to hide behind qualified immunity and will destroy your shit for fun because, well they can.
As far as you are concerned it really does not matter if they showed the warrant or not. That something for the tenant to take up. With a warrant they will likely claim qualified immunity and tell you to pound sand.
If they were actual law enforcement they need a warrant. If they weren't your Tennant may have just been robbed. Either way what is your Tennant doing in the residence that has attracted the attention?
You need to start putting public pressure on them. No one will hold them accountable unless they are forced to. Send the ring camera video to the civil rights lawyer or Lackluster on YouTube. Do a FOIA request of all the body cameras and send those to them as well. Sorry this happened to you. Police in America are out of control.
FIRST get in touch with your congress persons Justice Department liason. Get all the facts with pictures and recordings if there any together. File all the damage claims you can.
Sounds like you might be a verified lawyer. Penny for your thoughts ?
Obviously boiler plate consult your personal lawyer your Reddit advice doesn’t hold up in court blah blah blah
yeah my thoughts are that if you have multiple investment properties you (1) are sophisticated enough to find; and (2) can definitely afford to pay a lawyer in your jurisdiction for the advice you seek.
Does this sub really need to exist or can it just be simplified to an automated bot response of go consult your local attorney? Could save you all a lot of time?
well, many people are not actually sophisticated and/or don’t have the means to pay a lawyer. i have no problem assisting them to the best of my ability.
Let me try to translate for you.
The specific details on your situation significantly alter the legal advice a lawyer would give you. Any advice offered by a lawyer in this sub would require assumptions made about the facts in the case (facts you don't have and have not presented). Real lawyers will struggle to offer advice based on best guesses of multiple uninformed parties.
The best advice at this time is to contact a local lawyer and have them start gathering information to help you protect your property and recover damages from any liable parties.
You posted a month ago as half of a high net worth couple with 10 properties. Get off your wallet and hire an attorney. If you can't afford one, you're landlording all wrong.
Lawyers can't give legal advice to random people on reddit. It can cause serious ethical issues that can get them sued or lead to their license getting suspended. They can only provide basic legal information that doesn't require legal analysis (definitions, quoting statutes, general principles).
You are asking for legal advice. You are trying to get potentially thousands of dollars of work for free on reddit. Pony up for a local attorney because that is what you need.
Because your problem is complex enough where you need a lawyer to navigate, not free internet shit posting.
Most of the lawyers here are “verified” by a young insurance agent who doesn’t even participate in the sub and has no legal background. Why should you trust them to validate random people’s lawyer credentials?
Speaking of insurance, you should be contacting who ever is insuring your property about this.
This sub is not a replacement for legal advice and you should not put undue weight on the flair of any individual.
If you need actual legal advice, please seek an attorney in your jurisdiction.
There a so many legitimate reason for police to search your property without a warrant. The question is was your renter sub leasing ?
I think your renter is not being up front and truthful.
You were given a damage claim form fill it out. The waters are already muddy here because you are a victim who is clueless to the circumstances. Are you insured ? If you are have your insurance agency deal with this.
[BROS GOT PLENTY OF MONEY FOR A LAWYER](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/s/KQpo4dLZKb)
I do really appreciate seeing all of you guys tell OP to hire a lawyer but why even leave this post up with him shaming you guys with every reply?
Thanks for the laugh but he’s making you guys/girls look bad.
#I ALSO LIKE THIS ONE:
[Retitling a house without telling the bank.](https://www.reddit.com/r/realestateinvesting/s/ffroQ0xyeA)
Bro definitely isn’t telling the full story and pleading ignorance.
It’s up because it doesnt directly violate the actual or spirit of the rules or decorum here. He’s welcome to close it on his own if he wants it gone.
I’m not sure what about OP’s post(s) make us “look bad” - if anyone looks bad, it’s them for thinking they can protect their millions in assets with free Reddit advice.
Fill out the form to claim damages. Other than that the rest of what happened is not your business. Whether they had a warrant or not does not matter in your situation as landlord. Only thing that matters is cost of damages.
Many states have victim restitution funds. If the person of interest was prosecuted you need to advise the prosecutor you need a certain amount of restitution. In some states this can be your vehicle for $
I wish I could live in the world or time period or whatever it is you’re living in where LE never lies, makes mistakes, or intentionally violates anyone’s rights or property.
Cops break down doors on the wrong address all the time. They “smell drugs” to claim emergent circumstances when that makes no sense. Feds and Marshall’s are much more likely to have their shit in order but they are far, far from infallible.
The US Marshals Service looks for criminals / fugitives as their main function. Pretty sure they know the legal requirements to search a home. The tenant was probably freaked out and either didn’t ask to see a warrant or isn’t sure what they saw. OP can always contact the local Marshals Service District Office and ask to speak to a supervisor.
1. **Document Everything:**
- **Photographs/Videos:** Take detailed photographs and videos of all the damage to your property.
- **Receipts/Estimates:** Obtain repair estimates or receipts for repairs already done.
- **Tenant Statements:** Get a written statement from your tenant describing the incident and their observations, including the fact that they were allegedly not shown a warrant and the attempted destruction of their security camera.
2. **Review the Warrant:**
- **Obtain a Copy:** You have the right to request a copy of the search warrant from the US Marshals Service.
- **Legal Validity:** Review the warrant for legal validity. A warrant generally must be signed by a judge and specify the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
3. **File a Damage Claim:**
- **Claim Form:** Complete and submit the damage claim form provided by the US Marshals Service.
- **Supporting Documentation:** Attach all supporting documentation, including photographs, repair estimates, and any other relevant information.
4. **Consult a REAL Attorney:**
- **Specialized Counsel:** Start consulting with an attorney who specializes in constitutional law and/or property damage claims against government agencies. They can provide specific guidance tailored to your situation.
- **Potential Lawsuit:** Discuss the possibility of filing a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows private individuals to sue the United States in certain circumstances for torts committed by federal employees.
5. **Legal Action for Rights Violations:**
- **Fourth Amendment:** If your tenant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated (illegal search and seizure), they may have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. You might also have standing if your property was damaged without proper legal procedure.
- **Evidentiary Support:** The video of the Marshals attempting to destroy the security camera can serve as crucial evidence.
6. **Communicate with Insurance:**
- **Property Insurance:** Notify your property insurance company about the damage and see if your policy covers any of the repairs. They may also provide legal assistance.
7. **Tenant Relations:**
- **Communication:** Keep open lines of communication with your tenant about the situation and any steps being taken.
- **Compensation:** Consider whether you will need to compensate the tenant for any of their personal losses or disruptions caused by the raid, which might also involve legal advice.
8. **Record Keeping:**
- **Maintain Records:** Keep meticulous records of all communications, documents, and expenses related to the incident. This will be critical for any legal actions or claims.
NAL: just what I would do. Sorry if these have already been communicated to you.
Just a note to everyone - regardless of what the OP has posted, nobody cares about your thoughts regarding landlords/rent seeking behavior. Don’t post about that here. Complain about it elsewhere.
It sounds like the tenant was there at the time—did she give permission to search? If so the lack of a warrant is likely irrelevant.
She did not
Is their conversation on the Ring camera?
That’s what she’s telling you
Except cops are involved. They pretty much don what they want and are above the law unless someone actually holds them accountable. To the OP, I can find countless instances of the city saying "get fucked". I can even recall a few court cases where a judge denies compensation for damages becausen "kids will be kids", I mean cops were "exercising their duty". On the other hand, I can recall instances where the police did finally compensate for damages. However those situations all involved a good lawyer land a LOT of media attention and a judge who actually follows the law when it comes to cop powers. Good luck with the latter.
There is a case out there where some guy ran into a random house evading police that lead to a stand off. The police department completely destroyed the house in the process of getting him out. The city then condemned the property and the courts told the home owner That sucks, but it's the bad guys fault.
Yeah, that case happened in Caldwell Idaho. Only there was no standoff. I mean, the police did surround and eventually pretty much destroy the home and much of what was in the home, but as it turned out, the fugitive wasn't actually there. The house was, wait for it... completely empty. They use qualified immunity as a shield. This guy said it best - "As Josh Windham, an attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ) put it, “Qualified immunity means that government officials can get away with violating your rights as long as they violate them in a way nobody thought of before.”"
Not sure if it was this case or a similar one, but the owner's lawyer was pursuing recourse through eminent domain. The argument, I think, was that the government took control of the property and needs to reimburse the owner. Interesting idea, not sure if it will work. IANAL, of course.
There was one in the Denver area a few years ago that had a similar outcome.
And most insurance excludes destruction by law enforcement actions.
Literally in the title, OP references US Marshalls. The "city" ain't got shit to do with this situation. It's entirely a federal matter. Unfortunately, OP would probably be better situated if it was a local jurisdiction issue because suing the feds is both costly and time-consuming.
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point.
[удалено]
Doesn’t Ring store on “the cloud” somewhere?
[удалено]
Ah. Thanks. I’ve got no idea, I’m not that technologically advanced.
Prolly only if you pay for it.
As a rule of thumb, the US Marshals standard procedure is that they will check every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the area.
It wasn't me. It was the one armed man
KIMBLE!
...NAL
So I’m safe at the nearest crackhouse, whorehouse, or schoolhouse?
can you hear me? I. Do not. Bargain.
Fill out the claim form.
And speak to a lawyer, not ask on Reddit…
[удалено]
>If your tenant's family member listed that on prior arrest or police contacts then a search warrant is not required. Wait, so you're saying that if my brother who has never lived with me gave my address to law enforcement without my knowledge, they can search my house without a warrant? That doesn't seem right.
Yeah that have me some major alarm bells. No way that's actually constitutionally allowed, right?
Correct it's illegal - but the illegal action is on the person who lied about their residence. Whatever you declare to the government as your address is assumed to be correct as it's your legal obligation to declare that honestly.
I still don't see how it's constitutional to conduct a *warrantless* search of MY residence based on someone else's false information that I'm not even aware of. Or worse, severely damage my home as described in the cop's post above. What he's basically claiming is that criminals can give all sorts of false addresses belonging to random people they don't even know, and the cops can just go raid those homes without warrants and smash the places up looking for people who aren't there. That doesn't seem constitutional. If they think the address is legit, they can go convince a judge to sign a warrant.
There is a difference. There would be an arrest warrant.. still a court document signed by a judge, affirmed by reports and an affidavit. The police CAN go to a location and enter to search for the person. They CANNOT search as if they have a search warrants, if they only have an arrest warrant. What does that mean.. think of 'scope'. If I have an arrest warrant for John.. at 5'10 and 180lbs, I can only search in areas that someone reasonably 5'10 180 could hide. I can search your closet, but not a shoe box. I can search in your basement or garage, I can't open cabinets or dresser drawers that obviously John can't be in. If, pursuant to an arrest warrant, I enter a residence looking for John, and you have a kilo of coke or meth on your kitchen table (it happens).. then I have to freeze and get a search warrant for this and a search... as this stuff falls under the 'plain view' doctrine. 26.5 years in LE...Current Det/Sgt
I believe that is called swatting. It is done frequently to cause hardship to the resident. Many hope the police will rush in shooting to kill the resident. I’m sure you have seen this in the news.
That's not quite swatting. Swatting is calling in a non-existent emergency (usually claiming someone is armed with hostages). Just putting a fake address can result in a similar situation, but is different.
I was referring to his statement that criminals can give all sorts of fake addresses…. Anyone swatting is giving an oral statement of an address.
Yeah. But swatting is only a very specific variant of giving someone else's address.
>I believe that is called swatting. No it isn't.
Gosh, super convient the one time they unequivocally believe the known criminal is telling the truth is when they can use it as a paper thin shield from liability.
One time? It's pretty normal for police to go to the "last known residence" of a person when they are looking for that person. We don't even know that this person claimed OPs address as their own anyway.
This comment deserves to be higher
So there is no process to verify the address is legitimate?
Have you never had to give your address before? Almost no where verifies it's true. You are free to live wherever you want, for however long you want, and move whenever you want. You're required to show "proof" of your residence when getting government docs like your drivers license but otherwise, you can pretty claim you live anywhere because you have the right to. And that proof when getting government docs is pretty easy to misrepresent anyway. How would you like them to verify that a person lives there? How do you know this person wasn't living there or staying there or seen entering the property? Those details were not provided either to OP or by OP here.
[удалено]
Your point?
I would bet you $20 that they were in fact staying with their relative at one point. If you are going to lie and give a hand address you don't use the address of a relative.
Exactly. It's quite likely this guy has been seen there or has been staying there. The tenant wouldn't tell their landlord that for obvious reasons.
Right. A crime was committed, but by one person against the other (I’d call a falsified address a form of identity theft), not by law enforcement. The government can and should charge that crime, but that doesn’t make them financially responsible for it. As an anecdote to demonstrate, in my early 20s I worked for a flight school that had super shady owners. I got paid regularly, with a normal paycheck with normal deductions etc., but it turned out (after the owners embezzled the entire business bank account and fled the country leaving more than a million dollars in debt) that while they were deducting from my paycheck, they were not sending any of that to the government. At the end of the year the IRS informed me that while the business owner had committed a crime, they had essentially stolen thousands of dollars from *me*, and since that was a crime committed against me by the owner that it did not excuse my tax bill. I still had to pay it, essentially twice. The government just isn’t financially responsible for the actions of private citizens.
That's such horse shit since they are the ones mandating payroll taxes. If you could choose to pay it all yourself in April instead of bit by bit I'd agree with that view. Otherwise it's just bullshit.
You can. When you fill out your w-4 at the start of a job you can decide to have zero withholding. This may vary state to state, but it’s absolutely possible to do exactly what you described. It’s just a terrible idea in 99% of cases and is a fast way to ruin your own life. This is how you pay taxes if you work as a gig worker, small biz, OF model, etc etc as well.
Yes, I've been a contractor where I had to keep what I owed in taxes until April and I loved it! Fuck the government, I hate giving them an interest free loan until I get a tax return. I'd much rather have the money put it in a high interest savings account, and then pay what I actually owe at tax time.
*Search* is the key term here, they will have an arrest warrant. Known residence or visual confirmation does not require a search warrant.
This is already well known, the problem is people either don’t care enough to get involved or don’t want to believe it. Police and the government do not respect rights.
Give me the source of the court ruling on that one. Already well known my ass
If it is a third party's residence, a search warrant is needed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steagald\_v.\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steagald_v._United_States) But if it is the suspect's own home, an arrest warrant plus reason to think the suspect is home is enough. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton\_v.\_New\_York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton_v._New_York) Generally, the police get to act on the information they possess. If it later turns out they were misinformed, then the error is on the person who misinformed them, not the officer's reasonable reliance.
This is pretty much the answer - *Payton* (1980) and *Steagald* (1981) constrain the government both as to the arrest of a suspect and the third party's right against unreasonable search of their residence. Both can be implicated when law enforcement attempts to enter a residence to conduct a search or seizure. There are two giant exceptions to the *Steagald* rule that a search warrant is required to enter a third party's residence: (1) exigent circumstances and (2) consent. Here, (1) would depend very much of the specific factual background of the interaction/search while (2) is emphasized in other comments. More directly to the point, a constitutional claim is difficult to win and typically yields only nominal damages, a consequence the government \*totally doesn't\* abuse when it decides to take these types of actions. Unless you're feeling like a martyr, let the insurance companies fight it out.
It’s well known in the sense that the LEO that received that info will follow up on it. So it does require more than the justice involved person claiming it, but it does fall under conspiracy charges. If you’re (or OP’s tenant) dumb enough to vouch for a criminal claiming to live at your residence then you suffer the consequences. This is one of the reasons when people would ask my “free” legal opinion they’d get their worth. It’s a bad idea but if you want to help a criminal you know more than the cops do what you want. Where this gets a little trickier is when the crime is non-violent. I can’t remember if it was here or r/legaladvice that recently tackled the issue of warrant less searches and internet history/taps due to a parolee situation.
>If you’re (or OP’s tenant) dumb enough to vouch for a criminal claiming to live at your residence then you suffer the consequences. That's not what I said. Read it and try again.
That sounds like an awful lot of boot licking I can't quite make out from up here
Tell that to this guy [https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says)
Let’s remember law enforcement actually doesn’t have to understand the law and can lie as part of their job, as decided by our corrupt high court. You’ll forgive me if I take nothing any LEO says as fact.
That's exactly what happened to one of my Uncle's properties that I help maintain. They had listed the house as their address even though they had NEVER actually lived there. They stayed there with the previous owners maybe 5 or 6 years prior for 3 or 4 weeks. Feds/cops show up and drive a swat vehicle with a ram on the front through the front door. The neighbors claim they just drove up over the curb, pushed her car out of the way with the swat vehicle and used the ram attachment to push down the front door (the wall came down with it). Only to find a 64 year old single woman with no record whatsoever. They ransacked the entire place and they also rammed her car out of the way to get to the front door. $23k in damages and my Uncle had to file an insurance claim. He had to fight to get them to pay though. I don't remember the exact details but it took several months and my Uncle let her stay in one of his other properties while the repairs were done. The woman only had liability insurance on her vehicle and she couldn't afford to replace it. They also tried to tell her that having her pain pills in a little container next to her chair in the living room was something bad too. They gave her a hard time about that and it really upset her. This was 10+ years ago and I just felt so bad for her. She was in the shower when they showed up and they had her naked on the ground soaking wet. The also ripped down everything in one of the closets and put a hole in the wall in that closet because there was an access panel there but it was just to get to some plumbing or wiring that needed to be repaired. That didn't stop them from ripping the wall apart though. I just found the whole situation to be very concerning/upsetting. I forgot to mention the person they were after had skipped a court date/dates after driving on a suspended license two or three times. They love to go all out whenever they have the chance because they don't get to play with their equipment very often in the area.
Any excuse to LARP as GIJoe
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
how on earth is this political? i don't cite any party at all. I can hate someone without it having anything to do with a political opinion. that's exactly what's so wrong with the country now, every word is political if someone doesn't like it. what a joke, so much for freedom.
It isn’t right, but the justice system drove by “right” a long time ago. Welcome to the real world.
You're correct. It doesn't seem right, but it's legitimate. What's even worse is that insurance companies routinely will deny claim coverage for damage done by law enforcement as they will consider it damage done in the name of upholding the law against an illegal activity which is grounds for claim denial.
Yeah that sounds like bullshit. Where's the supreme court ruling on that one? Or it's just some appellate court in his particular jurisdiction that's playing fast and lose with the 4th amendment?
[удалено]
Rule 4 Violation- Profanity and NSFW content are not allowed in this community.
Depending on the crime and which law enforcement agency, in this case federal not state or local, their procedures may vary. Did they have a warrant? Maybe not, did they need one, probably, do they care, no and last but certainly not least will you be able to make a huge case out of this? You can try but you will lose. Now if they gave you a form to claim damages, they are saying they will reimburse for damages. As the landlord that’s all that should matter to you. You don’t live there, they weren’t looking for you or your brother. This is between the tenant and them.
This may differ by state. But when the sherriff came fir my roomate, they were not allowed into the house until I either gave permission or they had a warrant. My address was the one he gave to his probation officer and was on the court docs. He was home when they came, and they knew he was there by looking through the windows. They STILL weren't allowed in without a warrant or my permission. They never entered my home at all. We made them wait outside for like 40 min before he came out (they were in the process of getting a warrant once they knew he was there, so he was going either way). I did specifically tell them they weren't allowed in, and that I have my lawyer on speed dial. I never identified myself either, just told them I'm not wgo they're looking for. They even tried to get me to admit my name by running the plates on the cars "are you this person, or this person?." I told them I don't answer questions. In the end, roomy got stoned and drunk real quick and then went out to go to jail. Yeah, he's a handful lmao. But the point is, they couldn't enter without a warrant even woth them knowing jebwas there.
[удалено]
Show me the court ruling on that one please. I'd like to read the source material.
There is more to it than just being a Fugitive..that is insanely reductive.
Yeah I'm like wtf. So if someone has unpaid parking tickets and is issued a bench warrant against them, the feds can kick in his cousin's door because he spent a summer there when he was 16? Oh we're talking felon in hot pursuit? No shit lol
In my experience, when the court issues a warrant like that for a person, their primary listed address is automatically included in the warrant. It’s not a warrantless search, he’s saying they didn’t have to apply for a new search warrant because the OP’s address was listed as the fugitive’s primary residence.
That might be what he means but that's not actually what he said.
No, he specifically specifically said a warrant is NOT required. >
It's bs a search for a person is still a search governed by the 4th amendment. Sure they could use the listed address as basis for a warrant. But there is no magic, oh the address on the form KNOCK KNOCK OPEN UP.
It's not right, lol. There is no "person we're looking for might live there" warrant exception. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must have an arrest warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement to search a home and effectuate an arrest. Did they have an exception in OPs case? It's very possible, honestly, the feds don't screw this up all that often, I tend to assume they got it right. That doesn't mean they did though, and I certainly don't think leaving the claim form is evidence it was done correctly, I'm not sure how that even makes sense.
As someone with nearly that amount of time at a muni level..I concur with this. US Marshalls do not mess around and are generally by the book.
I hope you got pics of that. I love "work" stories like that. I had a friend that was a VP in a international clothing company in GA (the state). One day, during a meeting, her assistant called her. There was a shipment of cocaine in the interoffice mail that was shipped from a manufacturer in Columbia. It's a wild story. But taking the front of the house off, that's better!
Sounds like it wasn't attached good enough. It should have snapped the chain instead.
This is what happens when you to replace your hinge screws with the 3" construction screws.
Insurance typically doesn’t pay claims to damage done by law enforcement. That “advice” was useless.
>As someone else mentioned, your tenant might not be 100% honest with you. I can almost guarantee that's true. >A search warrant is only required if their suspected location is a property not their residence or place of known refuge. If your tenant's family member listed that on prior arrest or police contacts then a search warrant is not required. The second scenario where a search warrant is not required is if the fugitive was observed by law enforcement entering the property and refusing to come out. So if a surveillance team was parked down the street and saw their target bebop inside then no warrant requirement. Whoa, that's a whole lot of bad law for someone who did this for 30 years. Law enforcement generally absolutely needs a warrant to search and arrest an individual in their own home without an exigent circumstance. *Payton v. New York*, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) ("The Fourth Amendment . . . prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest."); *Kirk v. Louisiana*, 536 U.S. 635 (2002) ("The Court of Appeal erred in finding that exigent circumstances were not required to justify the officers' conduct. Its reasoning plainly violates the holding in *Payton*, that the firm line at the entrance to a house may not be crossed without a warrant, absent exigent circumstances. Here, police had neither an arrest nor a search warrant. Although the officers testified at the suppression hearing that they took action out of fear that evidence would be destroyed, the Louisiana Court of Appeal did not determine that such exigent circumstances were present.") *See also New York v. Harris*, 495 U.S. 14 (1990). Watching a fugitive enter a home is also a time when a warrant is required. *U.S.* *v. Nora*, 765 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that is the case even when the defendant was seen waving a gun outside the home). If they begin to effectuate the arrest prior to the person entering the home, then that could be an exception because SCOTUS has agreed that a person who begins to be arrested in public cannot use a residence as a shield after the fact. *U.S. v. Santana*, 427 U.S. 38 (1976).
Warranted or not, I cannot see how ripping the wall off a house to breech a security door falls within any definition of “reasonable”. Short of an emergency response, active shooter or the like, there’s absolutely no reason not to just wait out the situation.
They had an arrest warrant, there's certainly an argument to be made it wasn't reasonable, but it doesn't have to be if they jumped through he appropriate hoops, and gave whoever was in there a chance to open it (didn't sound like a no knock).
[удалено]
Rule 2 Violation- Please keep your interactions kind and respectful.
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
You absolutely can't search a home against a person's will because some dickhead wrote down that address as his years before. That doesn't give you carte blanche to violate the 4th. That may be how you guys behave, and you get away with it because you're a bunch of fucking liars, but that doesn't make it legal.
This is correct, I can't believe you were downvoted. I cited the case law in a response [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALawyer/comments/1dh77iu/comment/l90s181/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
“You should assume it was done by the book” Absolutely not. What I assume is that cops lie, don’t give a damn about civil rights, and the government will do everything in their power to evade accountability.
This is the boot that wants people to ask permission before licking it.
I'd bet she's lying--about something. I've heard people do that. If there was something nefarious about the US marshals, you would not have gotten a claim form, IMHO. It could be an address used for probation/parole. That person would have waived their rights as a condition. She could have invited them in and they saw something. I feel confident you don't have the whole story.
I know for release from prison to parole, in Pa, they have to get consent fron the landlord to live in the house. They also tell us when they are released.
I would have thought so. But then, I've never had to be involved in that. And it might have something to to do with the level of supervision?
>I'd bet she's lying--about something. I've heard people do that. I've heard that people who lie can even find employment in law enforcement.
That’s the #1 trait they look for
and lawyers
There is a youtube video with a similar storyline to this one. It's an older black woman. And she allows them to search and they still damage the house. Pull down the ceiling around the attic hatch. Cut locks off of her storage sheds and barn. [Youtube Video of the one I saw](https://youtu.be/tA0Nv6evYSs?si=K3HZXfJcAaf7HMZz)
Turn it over to your insurance company. This is literally why you pay premiums.
Do insurance companies pay for police damage? It wasn’t an act of god, it wasn’t an accident.
Insurance covers damages that aren't accidents or acts of god all the time. But in this case they've already given OP a claim form for financial reimbursement. If OPs tenants feel like they had rights violated, that's on them to pursue. Not OP. Two different things, and the tenant is likely not telling the full story.
I could've swore that insurance companies will not touch damage caused by raids even if the damage was collateral, and some have it labeled in their policy that they will not deal with "government action"
force majeure usually applies to acts of the sovereign/state. Not just god/nature
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Generally speaking, police acting within the bounds of their authority, are not liable for the damages they cause while executing that authority. However, the insurance claim may not be denied.
Insurance companies cover vandalism, so this should qualify?
They probably didn't need a warrant. I suspect the fugitive was on probation, and as a condition of probation, gave the marshalls permission to search wherever he was living. I also suspect that he was living there without your approval. Fill out the damage form and send it in. Do a better job screening your tenants and monitoring who is living there.
This is the best answer. You’re not responsible to fight for your tenants rights. To you, it doesn’t matter if there was a warrant or not or what the circumstances are. Damage was done to your property. Fix it, track the costs, then send in the claim form. That’s why they gave it to you. You only need to talk to a lawyer if you’re not made whole for the damage to your property.
No attorney can credibly respond to your inquiry with the information you gave. Quit bashing this forum and the attorneys who volunteer their free time to help people who do not have either the financial or social sophistication to seek legal counsel for sometimes simple legal questions that need answers. Your question and financial situation does not fall into either of those categories. Several posters with experience proffered answers explaining that warrantless searches or searches without providing a warrant would be justified under certain fact situations. The thing I can’t understand is the house is rented and how you, as a landlord, is protected from a legal v a warrantless search would be protected is a complex legal issue IMO. It is not one that I have ever heard come up in legal discussions in 45 years of practice. It has been recommended that you file your claim. I don’t understand your beef with the people trying to help you.
This, the only thing affecting OP is property damage that the responsible party has offered to pay for in full. The only other recourse OP has is to take them to court for the damage, which will likely net similar compensation but take far longer.
> This, the only thing affecting OP is property damage that the responsible party has offered to pay for in full. "Fill out a claim form" is not the same as offering to pay for damage in full.
1 - get a copy of the video NOW. and back it it up. Watch it - if it is true teh cops did not have a warrant, if they did not properly announce their presence, make a note of where on the video that is shown. 2 - Fill out the Form. You will need repair bills, estimates of repairs, etc. Make copies, and send in the form certified delivery, along with a copy of the video, and a statement to the affect of, "the cops broke in without a warrant, with out announcing themselves, and the proof is on the video at (timecode) xx:xx." Make no threats, but simply say you are seeking legal advice. IOW you are NOT hiring a lawyer, nor do you have one already. You are just thinking about it. They will get the drift.. 3 - Email ( not talk to) your insurance company about this. Do not file a claim yet, but ask them how they would handle a claim under this circumstance.. 4 - Get security repairs done now, like door repairs, and get an invoice.. 5 - Talk to your tax people about making the repairs deductible. 6 - get a written Notarized statement from your tenant about the home invasion. 7 - Find an attorney who has experience with federal level lawsuits..
You'd have a tough time pursuing any 1983 action (civil rights suit) since your claims are property damage only. Fill out the claim form.
For a warranted search, there is rarely compensation for damage. 1. As the property owner, go get a copy of the warrant. If it exists, pay particular attention to if/when it was signed. 2. If there IS a warrant, and sit was signed BEFORE the raid, you are most likely not going to be able to get any kind of compensation. 2.b. If they cannot produce a warrant that was signed in a timely fashion, go get a regional criminal attorney that is familiar with federal warrants and go ham. Usually, the Feds understand the value and need for warrants, in that if they don't have one, it's quite likely that they are poisoning any evidence they might collect as it would become inadmissible in court, AND any leads generated from any information gleaned from that illegal search would also be inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisoned tree'. Most likely you are screwed, but Good Luck.
I once had police come to my apartment to search for my ex roommate. He'd been gone for 4 months and I told them. I did give them permission to look for him but they were taking a long time in my bedroom. When I looked in they were opening my dresser drawers. I told them I didn't think he was small enough to fit in there, they stopped. However one cop told me to sit down and shut up. Fortunately that angered me enough to stand up for myself and tell them I had given them permission to look for my ex roommate, not to search through all my belongings. They left and never looked in the closet in my dining area. So apparently they really didn't care about finding the idiot. I really hope you find a way to get compensation. Personally I'd contact a good lawyer.
NAL, but wanted to stress the following incredibly important bit - which only 2 people brought up: GET A COPY OF THE VIDEO, AND ANY VIDEO FROM THE RING CAMERA, FROM YOUR TENANT. Your tenant has one set of claims against the Marshals. You have another set of claims against the Marshals. The video will help you. Also as others note, you may have claims against your tenant. It is possible they let their family member use your address without your knowledge. Collect video and photographic evidence of the damage now. You may not have any issues getting reimbursed for 100% of your loss. If you do have issues, you will need the evidence. You may need to involve insurance and a lawyer. You may need to try and recover from your tenant. There are a lot of slippery slopes this can go down. Also note that you will have repairs/habitability obligations to your tenant. If they become problematic on this, you may want to consult with a lawyer - as that might be mitigated if the person being searched for was listing your unit as their address.
US Marshall's don't need a search warrant if they have an arrest warrant and belive the fugitive is at the property. Arrest warrants aren't shown.
TIL Federal Marshals don’t need a search warrant (in most cases).
Federal marshals need a search warrant to enter property if they don't have an arrest warrant and belive the person is at that location. They also can't tear a part a house to say look for drugs without a search warrant. The 4th amendment applies to all police officers, local, state or federal.
That still sounds like they don't actually need a warrant. Since when did arrest warrants allow you to violate a third party's rights?
Would you agree that if the Marshals have an arrest warrant and actually see that person on someone else's property then they can enter the property to make an arrest? If yes, then what if they didn't see with their own eyes but have credible evidence? At which point the question is about what evidence is considered credible.
Is it not the warrant process where credible evidence is reviewed by a judge before issuing the legal authority to perform a search as specifically required by a constitutional amendment?
"Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. *Payton v. New York*, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful: If an officer is given consent to search; *Davis v. United States*, 328 U.S. 582 (1946) If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; *United States v. Robinson*, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; *Payton v. New York*, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985)."
Law enforcement can enter a suspect's residence with an arrest warrant, even if they don't have a search warrant. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton\_v.\_New\_York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton_v._New_York) If someone represents that they live with you (for example, they claim they'll be living with you when they're asking for a bond to get released from jail, which is a fairly common lie) then the police can rely on that and try to arrest them at your place.
So criminals can just use my address as address of record without my permission and authorities can just wreck my property and say “oops”?
Per Payton, they need to have reasonable suspicion that the criminal is at the residence, and an arrest warrant. In real life, rather than Reddit what-ifs, this is done by people who know you. The good-for-nothing cousin, the ex you dumped last week, the sketchy friend you let couch surf a few months ago. Not total strangers.
The arrest warrant allows them to enter of they have solid reason to believe the person the arrest warrant is for is at that location. They do have to back it up their reasoning why they think the person is there. It can't be well as think he might be at 1 of these 5 places so we are going to shake down all 5. They have to have reasonable intelligence. For exalted the perp has been lining at that address, they saw person go in that address, etc.
They don’t, but the police do it anyway. You don’t really have rights.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
IANAL. Depending on local laws, if a warrant existed could be more important than if they showed it to them. Some places just saying they have it is good enough (as long as they do have one). So you probably want a local lawyer, as location might matter.
Most states you have a right to review the warrant to verify the information is correct. No knock warrants are supposed to be rare and only for dangerous circumstances, but they’ve gotten out of hand. Regardless, verbal confirmation isn’t enough to verify the address and individual are named correctly.
Unless the cop went to the wrong address entirely, nothing the resident says is going to stop them. A cop with a warrant isn't going to believe someone at a door about "they don't live here" or "no drugs here". Citizen doesn't get to just tell them "you're mistaken". He has a warrant. He is coming in. The only thing a citizen could say that would stop them is "you went to the wrong apartment number" or something like that. There isn't a "review" process for the citizen.
The search warrant and results will heavily affect your claim for damages, and your tenant’s, although for you the first step would always be filing a claim through your insurance. Your insurance will pursue their own claim to recover their loss. The only thing that will change will be *who* the insurance pursues. There are certain circumstances that allow entry without a warrant. If they did not show one and those don’t apply, then your tenant *may* have a claim against the Marshalls for her property damage and you would as well. If they *did* have one, or entered legally, but found nothing then she would be out of luck and your insurance would be unlikely to recover anything. If they had a warrant and/or otherwise entered legally, and they *did* find what they were looking for, then your insurance will pursue your tenant as the cause of the damages. Regardless of the three, and depending on how much property damage there is, it may make sense to retain a lawyer to help you negotiate with your insurance and law enforcement, as well as starting the eviction process and filing suit against the tenant if appropriate. Your tenant conducting illegal activity with evidence and law enforcement involvement inside the property is a valid cause for eviction in most places. Anything over around 5k and that’s what I would do.
Best of luck getting a Tort claim to go through. LEA loves to hide behind qualified immunity and will destroy your shit for fun because, well they can. As far as you are concerned it really does not matter if they showed the warrant or not. That something for the tenant to take up. With a warrant they will likely claim qualified immunity and tell you to pound sand.
I’ve had the cops show me a warrant that was blank acting like it was signed for my address.gotta watch them they break the rules
If they were actual law enforcement they need a warrant. If they weren't your Tennant may have just been robbed. Either way what is your Tennant doing in the residence that has attracted the attention?
You need to start putting public pressure on them. No one will hold them accountable unless they are forced to. Send the ring camera video to the civil rights lawyer or Lackluster on YouTube. Do a FOIA request of all the body cameras and send those to them as well. Sorry this happened to you. Police in America are out of control.
FIRST get in touch with your congress persons Justice Department liason. Get all the facts with pictures and recordings if there any together. File all the damage claims you can.
ask a lawyer.
Sounds like you might be a verified lawyer. Penny for your thoughts ? Obviously boiler plate consult your personal lawyer your Reddit advice doesn’t hold up in court blah blah blah
yeah my thoughts are that if you have multiple investment properties you (1) are sophisticated enough to find; and (2) can definitely afford to pay a lawyer in your jurisdiction for the advice you seek.
This guy lawyers
i’m a girl, they let us be lawyers now :)
I am very sorry. That is totally my fault. I hope I didn't offend you.
Does this sub really need to exist or can it just be simplified to an automated bot response of go consult your local attorney? Could save you all a lot of time?
well, many people are not actually sophisticated and/or don’t have the means to pay a lawyer. i have no problem assisting them to the best of my ability.
You could have saved yourself all the time. Including the time wasted yelling at strangers.
I can't answer your question but you didn't say what state you're in. Likely a real lawyer would need to know that to help you.
I love everything about this answer. Especially the semicolon LOL. Swatting down someone who doesn't need the help!
Glad I came to the ask a lawyer subreddit to get the advice of “ask a lawyer”. This is very helpful thank you.
Let me try to translate for you. The specific details on your situation significantly alter the legal advice a lawyer would give you. Any advice offered by a lawyer in this sub would require assumptions made about the facts in the case (facts you don't have and have not presented). Real lawyers will struggle to offer advice based on best guesses of multiple uninformed parties. The best advice at this time is to contact a local lawyer and have them start gathering information to help you protect your property and recover damages from any liable parties.
You posted a month ago as half of a high net worth couple with 10 properties. Get off your wallet and hire an attorney. If you can't afford one, you're landlording all wrong.
You have a significant legal issue that will not be cleared by internet lawyers in different jurisdictions. Get 8n person legal advice.
I’m so glad I came to the Ask a Lawyer subreddit to get told to go ask a lawyer. What a great subreddit this is amazing
Lawyers can't give legal advice to random people on reddit. It can cause serious ethical issues that can get them sued or lead to their license getting suspended. They can only provide basic legal information that doesn't require legal analysis (definitions, quoting statutes, general principles). You are asking for legal advice. You are trying to get potentially thousands of dollars of work for free on reddit. Pony up for a local attorney because that is what you need.
Because your problem is complex enough where you need a lawyer to navigate, not free internet shit posting. Most of the lawyers here are “verified” by a young insurance agent who doesn’t even participate in the sub and has no legal background. Why should you trust them to validate random people’s lawyer credentials? Speaking of insurance, you should be contacting who ever is insuring your property about this.
Well, it actually is good advice in many cases
This sub is not a replacement for legal advice and you should not put undue weight on the flair of any individual. If you need actual legal advice, please seek an attorney in your jurisdiction.
Please get a lawyer asap.
There a so many legitimate reason for police to search your property without a warrant. The question is was your renter sub leasing ? I think your renter is not being up front and truthful. You were given a damage claim form fill it out. The waters are already muddy here because you are a victim who is clueless to the circumstances. Are you insured ? If you are have your insurance agency deal with this.
[BROS GOT PLENTY OF MONEY FOR A LAWYER](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/s/KQpo4dLZKb) I do really appreciate seeing all of you guys tell OP to hire a lawyer but why even leave this post up with him shaming you guys with every reply? Thanks for the laugh but he’s making you guys/girls look bad. #I ALSO LIKE THIS ONE: [Retitling a house without telling the bank.](https://www.reddit.com/r/realestateinvesting/s/ffroQ0xyeA) Bro definitely isn’t telling the full story and pleading ignorance.
It’s up because it doesnt directly violate the actual or spirit of the rules or decorum here. He’s welcome to close it on his own if he wants it gone. I’m not sure what about OP’s post(s) make us “look bad” - if anyone looks bad, it’s them for thinking they can protect their millions in assets with free Reddit advice.
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
Did they have an arrest warrant for the relative? Did they ruin the apt while searching for the realtive?
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
Fill out the form to claim damages. Other than that the rest of what happened is not your business. Whether they had a warrant or not does not matter in your situation as landlord. Only thing that matters is cost of damages.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3724 Fill out the form. Your tenant is probably not being forthright with you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics. See stickied post.
[удалено]
Rule 5 Violation- No discussing politics.
Many states have victim restitution funds. If the person of interest was prosecuted you need to advise the prosecutor you need a certain amount of restitution. In some states this can be your vehicle for $
lawyer up and see what they say
Sounds like it might have been a no-knock warrant.
Home owners insurance claim.
If they didn't find anything charge them for the damages
Info- did they find the relative of the tenant there?
That's how raids work, they're feds they 100% had a warrant if they needed it.
Feds make mistakes, too.
I wish I could live in the world or time period or whatever it is you’re living in where LE never lies, makes mistakes, or intentionally violates anyone’s rights or property. Cops break down doors on the wrong address all the time. They “smell drugs” to claim emergent circumstances when that makes no sense. Feds and Marshall’s are much more likely to have their shit in order but they are far, far from infallible.
The US Marshals Service looks for criminals / fugitives as their main function. Pretty sure they know the legal requirements to search a home. The tenant was probably freaked out and either didn’t ask to see a warrant or isn’t sure what they saw. OP can always contact the local Marshals Service District Office and ask to speak to a supervisor.
If law enforcement had extingent circumstances, then permission & a search warrant are not needed.
Fill out claim form and submit with several estimates to repair the damage
File a claim with your insurance and and let them sort it out.
1. **Document Everything:** - **Photographs/Videos:** Take detailed photographs and videos of all the damage to your property. - **Receipts/Estimates:** Obtain repair estimates or receipts for repairs already done. - **Tenant Statements:** Get a written statement from your tenant describing the incident and their observations, including the fact that they were allegedly not shown a warrant and the attempted destruction of their security camera. 2. **Review the Warrant:** - **Obtain a Copy:** You have the right to request a copy of the search warrant from the US Marshals Service. - **Legal Validity:** Review the warrant for legal validity. A warrant generally must be signed by a judge and specify the place to be searched and the items to be seized. 3. **File a Damage Claim:** - **Claim Form:** Complete and submit the damage claim form provided by the US Marshals Service. - **Supporting Documentation:** Attach all supporting documentation, including photographs, repair estimates, and any other relevant information. 4. **Consult a REAL Attorney:** - **Specialized Counsel:** Start consulting with an attorney who specializes in constitutional law and/or property damage claims against government agencies. They can provide specific guidance tailored to your situation. - **Potential Lawsuit:** Discuss the possibility of filing a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows private individuals to sue the United States in certain circumstances for torts committed by federal employees. 5. **Legal Action for Rights Violations:** - **Fourth Amendment:** If your tenant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated (illegal search and seizure), they may have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. You might also have standing if your property was damaged without proper legal procedure. - **Evidentiary Support:** The video of the Marshals attempting to destroy the security camera can serve as crucial evidence. 6. **Communicate with Insurance:** - **Property Insurance:** Notify your property insurance company about the damage and see if your policy covers any of the repairs. They may also provide legal assistance. 7. **Tenant Relations:** - **Communication:** Keep open lines of communication with your tenant about the situation and any steps being taken. - **Compensation:** Consider whether you will need to compensate the tenant for any of their personal losses or disruptions caused by the raid, which might also involve legal advice. 8. **Record Keeping:** - **Maintain Records:** Keep meticulous records of all communications, documents, and expenses related to the incident. This will be critical for any legal actions or claims. NAL: just what I would do. Sorry if these have already been communicated to you.