mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) (09/10/90)
Brian Yamauchi writes: >Perhaps some net.legal.expert can answer a question -- can Steve Jackson >(and other victims) sue the SS (and other agencies) for his losses? If >he does, what are his chances (assuming he and his employees are not >charged/convicted)? Based on what we currently know about the warrant, the chances are not very good. In general, the Federal Tort Claims Act bars actions against law-enforcement agents and agencies that cause harm to individuals while executing a lawful warrant. For a cause of action to accrue against, say, the Secret Service, it would have to be shown that the SS went beyond the authorization of the search warrant when they sought and seized all that property and paper and Steve Jackson Games. Now, the warrant was sealed, which means that few people have had access to the warrant itself and therefore few can say whether the language of the warrant has been overstepped. But since very broad search warrants have been held to be lawful in the past, I think the odds are fairly poor that Steve Jackson Games will recover in tort against the federal government. It's still possible, however, that we may all be surprised on that issue. --Mike Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | every thing would appear to man as it is, (512) 346-4190 | infinite." | --Blake
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (09/14/90)
In article <1990Sep10.012530.4008@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@granite.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: In article <11522@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: The seizure of equipment at Steve Jackson Games may well turn out to be a terrible abuse by Federal investigators. Suppose this all turns out to be a big mistake -- is the SS going to be held responsible for repairing all the damage it has inflicted? ...can Steve Jackson (and other victims) sue the SS (and other agencies) for his losses? If he does, what are his chances (assuming he and his employees are not charged/convicted)? About two years ago (exact references upon request, they're at home and I'm at the office), a small civil airplane was proceeding under Visual Flight Rules by a private pilot between two small Florida airports. During his landing rollout, the pilot found his craft suddenly and uncontrollably flipping onto its back. Upon extricating himself from the fuel-soaked wreckage, he was glad to see men in uniform nearby, and he began to approach them seeking assistance. The men in uniform were Customs agents (another branch of the Treasury department). They had been closely following the small airplane, without the pilot's knowledge, for some distance. They had just landed their helicopter near the small airplane, and the rotor wash caused it to flip. Thankfully, there was no fire. The pilot was instructed to lie on the ground while his airplane was thoroughly searched. When no drug-related contraband was found, the agents bid him farewell and departed. The aircraft was destroyed - a total loss, useful only for component salvage. When the pilot tried to sue the Customs Service for the damages caused to his airplane, he was denied permission. His insurance company declined to pay because the damage was the result of government action. The main difference that I (a pilot, but not a lawyer) can see between the airplane-flipping incident and SJG's is that, so far as I know, SJ was never in mortal danger.
tenney@well.sf.ca.us (Glenn S. Tenney) (09/26/90)
[If there is an alias for eff.news, I don't know it. Sorry.] Mike Godwin states that the Federal Tort Claims Act bars actions against the federal government in cases like Steve Jackson's. I don't have either the knowledge or the inclination to disagree. (pre-disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer.) It seems to me that you could make a good case that this makes the FTCA unconstitutional, on the grounds that it _effectively_ destroys all protections under the first, fourth, and various other amendments. Now I don't know the history of decisions based on effect rather than intent, but here's one _very significant_ case: Brown v. Board of Ed. (I think you're all familiar with that one :-). Specifically, while the intent of segragation was (according to its proponents and apologists) not to violate the constitution (I mean both the original document and the amendments), its practical effect undoubtedly violated many rights. Also, those of you who followed the Souter nomination hearings may recall his discussion of Miranda. (I must say I found his comments, on this and other issues, to be tremendously encouraging.) He stated that the court had _not_ created a new right, but rather that it enacted a _practical means of protecting_ a pre-existing right. Striking down the FTCA (or various sections?) would be a much less proactive example of this same philosophy. Clearly, Souter's is not the only opinion, and it may not even be commonly held. But _I_ certainly like it. :-) --- Alexis Rosen cmcl2!panix!alexis ps- If Mike (or anyone else) knows for a fact the history of this type of view, I'd love to hear about it.