SD: Inverse condemnation doesn’t lie for damage caused by execution of SW

Surveying cases from other jurisdictions, the South Dakota Supreme Court decides that inverse condemnation claims do not lie under the state’s eminent domain provision ( “[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use, or damaged, without just compensation[.]”) for damage to property during a search and seizure. Qualified immunity was properly granted against the unlawful entry claim. The force used was also not shown to be unreasonable. Hamen v. Hamlin Cty., 2021 SD 7, 2021 S.D. LEXIS 11 (Feb. 12, 2021). [What about wanton, unnecessary damage?]

Plaintiff inmate doesn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim for loss of his personal property during a cell search. As a First Amendment claim, however, his claim is speculative because it appears his access to the courts wasn’t interfered with because counsel was able to file his appeal. Morales v. Wetzel, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27139 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.