{"id":62622,"date":"2025-12-30T10:50:49","date_gmt":"2025-12-30T15:50:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=62622"},"modified":"2025-12-30T10:53:03","modified_gmt":"2025-12-30T15:53:03","slug":"ca9-takings-clause-of-5a-doesnt-support-damages-claim-during-swat-seige","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=62622","title":{"rendered":"CA9: 5A takings clause doesn&#8217;t support damages claim during SWAT siege; concurrence seemingly finds 4A privilege"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2025\/11\/04\/24-2422.pdf\">Pena v. City of L.A.<\/a>, 158 F.4th 1033 (9th Cir. 2025). From the Syllabus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<p>The panel affirmed the district court\u2019s judgment for the City of Los Angeles in a 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 action brought by Carlos Pena seeking compensation under the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Takings Clause for property destruction that occurred after Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers pursued an armed fugitive inside his shop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After a thirteen-hour standoff, in an attempt to subdue the fugitive, LAPD SWAT officers fired dozens of tear gas canisters through the walls, door, roof and windows of Pena\u2019s store. The tear gas damaged the shop, as well as the inventory and equipment inside. The parties do not dispute that the officers\u2019 conduct was authorized, reasonable, and lawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The panel held that the meaning of the Takings Clause at the Founding and two centuries of precedent demonstrate that the government\u2019s destruction of private property when necessary for the defense of public safety is exempt from the scope of the Takings Clause. Because law enforcement took reasonable and necessary actions to ensure public safety in this case, their actions were beyond the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, Pena failed to state a claim under the Takings Clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Concurring in the judgment, Judge Friedland wrote that although she agreed with the majority that Pena did not state a Takings Clause claim, she would reach that conclusion for a different reason. She would hold that the Los Angeles police\u2019s actions fell under the search-and-arrest privilege that serves as a background limitation on all property rights, including Pena\u2019s here, so no property right was infringed at all and, accordingly, no compensation was owed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Reason: <a href=\"https:\/\/reason.com\/2025\/12\/29\/innocent-man-sues-for-over-60000-after-police-blew-up-his-business-a-court-says-hes-entitled-to-nothing\/\">Innocent Man Sues for Over $60,000 After Police Blew Up His Business. A Court Says He&#8217;s Entitled to Nothing.<\/a> by Billy Binion (\u201cIt is yet another ruling that shields the government from liability for damages caused by law enforcement.\u201d)  I admit this one escaped me because it doesn&#8217;t cite the 4A.  Found it on Reason.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Pena v. City of L.A., 158 F.4th 1033 (9th Cir. 2025). From the Syllabus:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[114],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privileges"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62622","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=62622"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62622\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62627,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62622\/revisions\/62627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=62622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=62622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=62622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}