Tag: private property

Police Destroyed Innocent People’s Property—and Left Them With the Bill. Will the Supreme Court Step In?

2022 was a big year for both Carlos Pena and Amy Hadley. Separated by several states, SWAT teams left their properties in ruins while attempting to capture two suspects. In August, officers threw dozens of tear gas canisters into Pena’s Los Angeles printing business; two months prior, law enforcement had done the same to Hadley’s Indiana home before also destroying security cameras, punching holes in the walls, and ransacking the house.

Neither was suspected of a crime. They were, to put it mildly, unlucky. Which raises an unfortunate question: What is an innocent person owed when police wreck their property?

The Supreme Court will once again decide if it will address that question and offer legal clarity in a debate that has seen governments refuse to reimburse people when their property becomes major collateral damage in a law enforcement operation.

The circumstances leading up to Pena and Hadley’s property damage differ slightly. A SWAT team from the city of Los Angeles blew up Pena’s shop, NoHo Printing & Graphics, after a suspect ejected Pena from the business and barricaded himself inside while attempting to evade capture. (Police would later find that the man had escaped.) Over in Indiana, law enforcement arrived at Hadley’s house after an officer posited that a suspect was accessing the internet from her IP address, which wasn’t true.

The basic end result, however, was the same. Local government officials ignored their pleas for help and declined to compensate them for mutilating their respective properties, despite the fact that no party disputes their innocence. Pena has sued for over $60,000, alleging the raid destroyed his shop and the equipment inside, forcing him to relocate to a garage with one printer and a reduced capacity that has cost him significant revenue, according to his lawsuit. Hadley, meanwhile, says she incurred about $16,000 in losses, which insurance only partially covered. That it helped at all is not the norm. Pena’s insurance denied assistance, as most policies stipulate that they are not liable for government-induced damage.

Common sense may dictate that innocent people should not individually shoulder the financial burden of public safety (or, in Hadley’s case, a flawed police investigation). Yet both were denied relief because of how the property met its demise.

Is that constitutional? The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause promises “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use. But some courts have ruled that it does not always apply when police are involved.

The courts are not in agreement on what exactly the exception is or how far it goes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that Pena could not sue for damages because “law enforcement officers destroy[ed]” his shop “while acting reasonably in the necessary defense of public safety.” In other words, the judges declined to say if a categorical “police power” exception applies in such cases; that law enforcement acted reasonably and out of necessity was enough to kill his claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, however, did find a categorical exemption. “The Fifth Amendment does not require the state to compensate for property damage resulting from police executing a lawful search warrant,” wrote Judge Joshua Kolar, rejecting Hadley’s claim.

Keep reading

‘Squad’ Member Ayanna Pressley: ‘Eviction Is an Act of Violence,’ ‘Housing Is a Human Right’

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) says that her “HELP Act would give a lifeline to families facing eviction and vital resources during this time of crisis,” arguing that “housing is a human right” and that “evictions are an act of policy violence.”

Promoting the act on social media, Pressley said:

Eviction is an act of violence, and we have to do everything to prevent it. It is devastating for the families. It degrades the health of communities.
There is great stigma associated with it. It affects your credit score. Housing is a human right. It is a predictor of health outcomes.
It’s essential for social and economic mobility, and so many people, when they receive a notice to quit or to vacate their homes, usually because of non payment, because wages are not keeping pace with inflation, they don’t know their rights, and a lot of times, they will just accept that notice to quit and leave. And so my legislation is making sure they have access because we found that when tenants know their rights, when they have access to legal counsel we can usually keep them safely housed.

Pressley’s comments on eviction are consistent with the housing agenda she has pursued alongside other members of the “Squad.” During the coronavirus pandemic, Pressley joined Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in backing legislation that would have canceled rent and mortgage payments nationwide.

Pressley and the other lawmakers first supported the proposal in 2020 and later reintroduced the legislation in March 2021. 

The housing push also drew attention because both Tlaib and Pressley reported receiving rental income while supporting a nationwide pause on rent payments. Tlaib disclosed receiving between $15,001 and $50,000 in rental income in both 2020 and 2021 from a Detroit property she owns, while Pressley and her husband reported between $5,000 and $15,000 in rental income in 2020.

In February 2024, after Walgreens announced the closure of another pharmacy location in Roxbury, Massachusetts, Pressley said the move was “part of a larger trend of abandoning low-income communities” and described it as  “life-threatening acts of racial and economic discrimination.”

Keep reading

Landlords are using ‘extremely unreliable’ AI to settle disputes with tenants

Renters and landlords who find themselves at odds with each other over issues with maintenance, repairs, and rental increases have several options when it comes to mediation. 

Most would agree that legal intervention should be a last resort, but according to a new survey by Avail, independent landlords are turning to another resource to help with renter disputes: artificial intelligence.

Along with tapping platforms like ChatGPT for general tasks, AI has become a sounding board for landlords to ask for advice on everything from conflict resolution to local-law research and lease language clarification. 

But is it safe for landlords—and renters—if this becomes a widespread practice?

Keep reading

Female Napa Valley winery owner slapped with $4M in fines for putting on wine tasting and yoga classes on 8-acre land

A California winery owner has been slapped with nearly $4 million in fines after losing a court battle over hosting wine tastings and events on her eight-acre property.

Lindsay Hoopes, owner of Hoopes Vineyard in the rolling hills of Napa Valley, has been embroiled in a years-long court battle with Napa County.

The county filed suit in 2022, accusing Hoopes of creating a ‘public nuisance’ by hosting yoga classes and wine tastings, and selling items like greeting cards and hand sanitizer while failing to obtain a permit for a 120-sq-ft chicken coop. 

The legal fight hinges on whether small wineries established before 1990 – prior to new regulations – can host tastings without a permit. Central to the dispute is the ‘Small Winery Exemption,’ which the county argues does not allow such events. 

Hoopes has repeatedly challenged the county’s stance, continuing to allow the public onto her property despite what officials describe as ongoing ‘illegal activities,’ including farm animals on-site and unpermitted string lights. 

In the latest blow to Hoopes, a judge ruled against her, ordering an end to all on-site tastings, public events and sales on her vineyard, according to CBS News.

‘This is the most inhumane thing I’ve ever seen,’ Hoopes told the outlet in response to the ruling.

‘Drinking wine at a winery should never, ever, ever force a business owner/mother to essentially defend her livelihood or protect her children,’ she added. ‘I mean, the whole thing has been so grossly abusive and punitive.’

Keep reading

The Kill Switch Society

There was a time — not very long ago — when the automobile represented one of the clearest expressions of individual choice in a free society. Limited only by fuel, roads, and imagination, a person could choose where to go, when to go, and how to get there. The car was not merely a machine. It was mobility made personal — an extension of autonomy and freedom.

Sadly, that is no longer the case. Increasingly, this same instrument, once a tool to facilitate individual independence, has been repurposed into a system of monitoring and control. Though advertised as safety measures for the consumer, these measures were clearly designed to empower the state.

Modern vehicles are no longer just mechanical devices; they are computers on wheels. Embedded sensors track speed, braking patterns, seatbelt usage, location, and even driver attention. Event Data Recorders — commonly referred to as “black boxes” — have been standard in most new vehicles for years. Originally justified as instruments to reconstruct accidents, these devices record data in the moments before a crash. Few object to understanding the causes of collisions. But it is worth noting that once data exists, its use rarely remains confined to its original purpose.

Insurance companies now seek access to driving data to adjust premiums. Law enforcement agencies have used vehicle data in criminal investigations. Courts have admitted such data as evidence. Each of these developments can be justified in isolation. Together, they represent a quiet but unmistakable shift: the automobile is no longer simply your property — it is a source of information about you.

More recently, legislative developments have accelerated this trend. The federal infrastructure legislation passed in 2021 includes a mandate for advanced impaired driving prevention technology to be installed in all new vehicles within the coming years. While often described in benign terms — systems that passively detect intoxication or driver impairment — the practical reality is that these systems must continuously monitor driver behavior in order to function. Monitoring creates data. And data, once created, rarely remains unused. It takes on a life of its own.

Proposals and discussions around remote vehicle disablement — popularly referred to as “kill switches” — have raised further concerns. While proponents argue that such features could prevent high-speed chases or stop stolen vehicles, the existence of remote-control capabilities introduces a fundamentally different relationship between the individual and the machine. A car that can be disabled remotely is clearly not under the control of its owner.

History suggests that powers granted for limited purposes seldom remain limited. Civil asset forfeiture, initially justified as a tool against organized crime, expanded into widespread seizures affecting ordinary citizens. Surveillance authorities granted for national security purposes have been used in far broader contexts. It would be historically naïve to assume that vehicle control technologies would be immune to similar expansion.

Keep reading

Is This the Scandal That Dooms Josh Shapiro’s Presidential Ambitions?

Josh Shapiro has spent years polishing his image, positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate. He hasn’t quite figured out that his party will never nominate a Jew for president, so you would think he’d still try to keep up appearances and pretend to be a decent human being before he starts his presidential campaign next year.

Instead, he’s making headlines for something extremely unflattering: a backyard land grab that truly destroys his statesman image and makes him out to be more like a corrupt governor abusing his position to get what he wants.

“Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s neighbors are suing the Democrat, accusing him of stealing a slice of their land to erect an eight-foot-high security fence around his private residence in an ‘outrageous abuse of power,’” reports the New York Post. “The neighbors, Jeremy and Simone Mock, are currently duking it out with the governor in court over a 2,900 square foot parcel of land located between their two homes in Abington, Montgomery County, court papers show.”

It gets worse. Shapiro is essentially claiming squatter’s rights on the land.

The Mocks alleged in a lawsuit filed last month that Shapiro and his wife, Lori, unlawfully seized the stretch of land after initial negotiations to buy it from them went up in flames.

Shapiro claimed in a countersuit that he owns the disputed land due, citing an “adverse possession” loophole that makes it his because he has maintained the sliver of property for decades.

The land-grab tit-for-tat kicked off last year when the Shapiros first sought to erect the huge fence and upgrade security following an arson attack on the governor’s official residence in Harrisburg while they were all sleeping inside on April 13.

“This is a case of squatters’ rights, which is the colloquial term for the legal doctrine known as adverse possession,” attorney Chad Cummings told Realtor.com. “Where a person continuously maintains possession of another’s property openly, visibly, and notoriously for a set period of time, which varies by state, the squatter can file a court action to ask the court to recognize the squatter—the ‘adverse possessor’—as the legal owner through a quiet title action.”

Think it can’t get worse? Well, it does.

Keep reading

One in Five California Home Sales Canceled Due to Unaffordable Insurance

Glenn and Lorraine Crawford paid about $500 a month to insure their home in Agoura Hills northwest of Los Angeles when they bought it in 2012.

The Crawfords say they have little alternative but to pay the bill that arrived last month, which, at more than $44,000 a year, is almost as much as their mortgage bill. The only other insurer willing to cover their home, Lloyd’s of London, quoted them $80,000 a year.

More than a year after infernos tore through Los Angeles County, millions of Californians like the Crawfords are suffering through a home-insurance crisis that has rolled on for years with eye-watering rate increases, canceled policies and rejected claims.

Two of the biggest insurers, State Farm and Allstate, aren’t selling to new customers in the state, despite getting double-digit rate increases approved for their existing policyholders. A third, Farmers Insurance, has committed to cover more homes in fire-prone areas, but only a fraction compared with the drop in its overall number of policies since the crisis began.

The insurance dysfunction has spread to California’s housing market, the country’s biggest and most expensive, with nearly one-in-five real-estate agents reporting a canceled sale last year because of clients unable to find affordable insurance, according to a survey by the trade body California Association of Realtors.

The roots of California’s insurance crisis go back years. The state’s tough rate caps kept premiums low. But home insurers eventually balked, saying they couldn’t charge enough to cover rising wildfire and other losses, made worse by climate change and development. Insurers didn’t renew tens of thousands of policies, especially in fire-prone areas.

California’s uphill battle to draw insurers back could prove a template—or cautionary tale—for other disaster-prone states. New rules implemented last year, for instance, require home-insurers in the state to pledge to sell new policies in high-risk wildfire zones, in return for allowing them to charge higher rates.

As part of a request for a 6.99% rate increase, Farmers, the second-biggest home-insurer in the state, pledged to add at least 5,596 policies in high-risk areas by September 2028. That is less than a 10th of the 59,806 reduction in Farmers’ total number of California home-insurance policies in the previous two years, according to a Consumer Watchdog analysis.

Others continue to shun the state despite winning big concessions. California regulators approved a 34% rate increase for Allstate in 2024. Yet it has no “growth aspirations” in California home insurance, Chief Executive Tom Wilson said last year, adding that it would take time to fix the market. A spokesman said that remains Allstate’s position.

Keep reading

Oregon moves to penalize landlords who reveal tenants’ immigration status

Oregon lawmakers have approved a bill that would allow tenants to collect up to twice their monthly rent in court if landlords disclose their immigration status, the latest move by the state to expand protections for illegal aliens.

According to The Oregonian, House Bill 4123 passed the Oregon Senate Monday in a 24–3 vote and now heads to Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk. If signed into law, the measure would impose financial penalties on landlords who “knowingly” release confidential tenant information, including details about immigration or citizenship status, Social Security numbers, and medical or disability records. Under the proposal, tenants whose protected information is disclosed could sue to recover damages equal to two months’ rent.

The legislation builds on a 2025 Oregon law that already prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants based on immigration status. That law also bars landlords from sharing or threatening to share a tenant’s citizenship information in order to harass, retaliate, or intimidate them. However, it did not include a set financial penalty for violations, instead leaving tenants to pursue legal remedies through the courts.

State Sen. Dick Anderson, R–Lincoln City and vice chair of the Senate Committee on Housing and Development, called the measure a “simple, common-sense” step to protect privacy. “This is a balanced approach that protects tenant privacy without burdening housing providers,” Anderson said during floor debate.

Landlord groups also signaled support after amendments clarified what information can still be shared. The bill allows landlords to provide routine contact details, such as phone numbers or email addresses, for maintenance and utility coordination. It also permits disclosure of information when required by court order, during affordable housing compliance audits, or when conducting background and credit checks.

Keep reading

Arizona Senators Take Up Bills To Criminalize ‘Excessive’ Marijuana Smoke, Even On Private Property

Arizona lawmakers are considering at a pair of measures that would make the act of creating “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke a nuisance crime punishable by jail time, even if the person is using cannabis in compliance with state law in their own homes.

Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R) is sponsoring the two proposals—one that would amend state statute legislatively that would put the issue before voters at the ballot. Members of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee are set to consider the proposals this week.

The lawmaker said he decided to push the issue due to the smell of marijuana in his own neighborhood.

Both versions of Mesnard’s legislation stipulate that “it is presumed that a person who creates excessive marijuana smoke and odor causes a condition that endangers the safety or health of others.”

The reason behind having both a proposed bill and resolution is related to the potential legal challenges of lawmakers changing the voter-approved marijuana legalization law.

The legislation would establish “a presumption that the creation of excessive marijuana smoke and odor is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses and an obstruction to the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” a summary of the proposal says.

If enacted, the loosely defined offense of creating “excessive” marijuana smoke under the bill and resolution would be considered a class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a maximum $500 fine and up to one year of probation.

“I’m hearing from some people that, depending on their neighbor situation, they may not be able to have their kids go outside because the marijuana smoke is so potent,” Mesnard, the sponsor, said. “It can even creep into your own house or, in my case, into my garage.”

“But experiencing now what’s happened, even in my own neighborhood, is a pretty frustrating situation,” he told The Arizona Daily Star. “You should be responsible neighbors if you’re going to smoke pot… It can be a real issue for families, especially with kids.”

Asked about the seeming double standard given that no such nuisance offenses exist for smoking cigarettes or cigars on a private property, the senator said, “I’ll concede I hadn’t thought about it.”

Keep reading

Serial squatter’s lawyer says client used ‘squatter rights’ to take over $2.3 million Bethesda home—she’s back in the house after prison release

The lawyer of a convicted squatter said that his client was able to enter and “assume the property” of a $2.3 million home under so-called “squatters’ rights” in Maryland. The squatter, after being released from jail, was able to take over the home again.

Tamieka Goode as well as her partner Corey Pollard unlawfully took over a bank-owned mansion in Bethesda, Maryland, according to neighbors. Court records from last July show that Goode and Pollard were charged with trespassing and fourth-degree burglary. The charges were made in response to a filing from a 19-year-old who lives with his parents next door to the $2.3 million mansion, per Fox 5.

Videos that Goode has also posted online show her flaunting her lavish lifestyle in the home. “Less than two weeks of being incarcerated, Tamieka Goode is back in the house,” neighbor Ian Chen said, the same neighbor who reported Goode in the first place.

Goode spent 11 days in prison after she was convicted for squatting, posting a cash bail of $5,000. She also retained attorney Alex J. Webster, III, with Maronick Law to have him represent her in other court appearances.

After she was released, security footage showed she was back at the house squatting again. Goode’s lawyer, who thought he could ask reporters to “cut” the video when asked about her activities, said, “Well, Miss Goode did her research. She found out that a certain property was under the control of a certain group – there was a title issue.”

“Due to the title issue, she was able to assume the property under squatter’s rights,” he added.

After being asked about so-called “squatter rights” in Maryland, he said, “It’s not a particular squatter right, but there are rights known as squatter’s rights.”

He said that there are “loopholes” that “people do take advantage of, but loopholes are loopholes” and that Goode followed the “order of events” to exploit them and obtain residency in the property.

A neighbor in the area, who went by Mi, but did not share her full name, fears that the situation could “erupt into violence,” as others around Goode have been pushing her to get out of the home.

Keep reading