aftermath of a "self defense" shooting of cop

[pax]

Friday, March 07, 2003 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Pierce County cleared in damage to house

By The Associated Press

OLYMPIA — Pierce County doesn't have to compensate the mother of a man convicted of killing a sheriff's deputy for massive damage to her house caused by a search for evidence, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In a 7-2 ruling, justices found that the search, in which two walls from Linda Eggleston's house were removed after the October 1995 killing of Deputy John Bananola, wasn't an unconstitutional taking of property.

Her son, Brian Eggleston, was sentenced in January to more than 48 years in prison in the deputy's death.

One of the walls was load-bearing, and removing it made the house uninhabitable. A judge later ordered the house preserved as a crime scene.

"When law enforcement exceeds its lawful powers, the injured have a right to redress," Justice Tom Chambers wrote for the majority. "But if this occurred that October day, there are other, more suitable, remedies available. Extending takings to cover this alleged deprivation of rights would do significant injury to our constitutional system."

Linda Eggleston, who also alleged federal civil-rights violations, settled for $100,000, said John Kuglin, an attorney for the county.

On Oct. 16, 1995, Bananola was among Pierce County detectives who served a search warrant at the Eggleston home. Eggleston claimed he thought intruders were breaking in and fired in self-defense, but prosecutors said he knew Bananola was a deputy.

Eggleston's first trial ended in a hung jury in 1997; a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder the next year but the verdict was thrown out by an appeals court. He was convicted in his third trial.

Kuglin greeted Chambers' ruling on the state constitutional issue with relief because the case could have led to claims against the government for use of its police powers, ranging from compensation for property seized as evidence to payment for lost income during jury service.

"It makes it nice and clear that the government has the ability to function without having to pay people if its essential functions cause damages," Kuglin said.

Justices Barbara Madsen, Bobbe Bridge, Faith Ireland, Charles Smith, Charles Johnson and Susan Owens joined Chambers. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Richard Sanders wrote separate dissents.

Alexander argued that Linda Eggleston should have been compensated because she wasn't a party to her son's crimes.

"No individual should have to assume a burden of the magnitude the state would impose on Mrs. Eggleston," Alexander wrote.

Sanders was even more blunt:

"If government seizure and confiscation of one's living room wall is not a compensable taking, the words of our state Declaration of Rights have lost their meaning," Sanders wrote.

The state constitution reads: "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made."

 

[TallPine]

No man shall be tried twice for the same offense, but I guess three times is okay.

 

[jmbg29]

Linda Eggleston has a number of problems, not least of which is that she wasn't the murderer in this case.

Had she been the murderer, the 7-2 decision would have been in her favor. I can't recall a recent case in which they didn't side with the killer.

For example: Justice Sanders is what passes for a conservative in WA st. .gov, earlier this year, SSCOWA threw out our felony assault w/murder 2 enhancement law. So now, if one commits a felony assault that results in murder, one can only be convicted of assault.

In his eyes, a man that clubs another man in the head with a skateboard, and KILLS him. Can't be considered a murderer, because the killer really seemed to be commiting assault.

Feeelings...whoa...whoa...whoa...feeeeeelings......

 

[JohnBT]

Ignoring the finer points of law for the moment...

...what were they searching for in the walls?

John

 

[pax]

JohnBT,

Not sure, but I assume it would have something to do with the drugs they expected to find in the residence. Here's an earlier article from the same case:

Police hold house as evidence 7 years after deputy was shot there

Thursday, June 27, 2002

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TACOMA -- The house where Linda Eggleston's son killed a Pierce County sheriff's deputy during a drug raid has been preserved as a crime scene for seven years. For Eggleston, that's too long for the government to hold her property without paying for it.

Clothing, shoes, furnishings and kitchen supplies litter the floor. Investigators' notes written on the walls point to blood stains and bullet holes. Two walls are missing. Investigators took them for evidence.

Eggleston, the home's owner, isn't seeking a specific amount of compensation in the lawsuit that the Washington Supreme Court heard this week, but the house had an assessed value of about $100,000 before the raid.

"I never thought this could happen," Eggleston told The News-Tribune recently. "I believed in the system."

Pierce County lawyers contend that Tacoma police had a right to the evidence and aren't required to compensate her.

"It's part of the evidentiary process," said John Kugler, the county's attorney, who argued that recognizing Linda Eggleston's claim could have implications every time police seize evidence in a criminal case.

The case raises questions about whether the police department's right to evidence is absolute, or if compensation can be justified.

Linda Eggleston's father built the small two-bedroom house in 1949. It was her largest asset when deputies entered on Oct. 16, 1995.

Brian Eggleston has testified he didn't hear the deputies knock or identify themselves, and he grabbed a gun in self-defense

During the ensuing shootout, Brian Eggleston, a small-time marijuana dealer with no prior criminal record, fatally shot Deputy John Bananola.

The jury in Eggleston's first trial couldn't reach a decision on the first-degree murder charge. A second jury convicted him of second-degree murder, but an appeals court overturned the decision last year. A third trial is scheduled for October.

The reason the Pierce County police folks went into the residence in force in the early hours of the day was because Brian Eggleston's twin brother, Brent, is a deputy in that dep't. Brent and Brian supposedly both lived at their mother's house and the raid was conducted the way it was because the sheriff's office was concerned that their deputy was involved in his brother's strictly small-time drug activity.

The raid netted about 2 ounces of maryjane and some assorted drug-use items (I'm assuming a pipe, though the articles I've seen didn't specify), and the fact that Brent hadn't lived there for over two months.

Brian's drug conviction netted him a 20-year sentence.

The Sheriff's office gave his mother $100k out of court, and changed its operating procedure regarding drug raids, including not wearing dark masks and not rushing in quite so recklessly. At issue in the court case that started this thread was whether the Sheriff's office had to provide the woman's actual losses under the 'takings' clause of the Constitution, but they had already shelled out $100k to forestall the immanent civil case.

pax

I have come to regard the law courts not as a cathedral but rather as a casino. -- Richard Ingrams

 

[Hawkeye755]

More than likely they took the walls to recover any rounds that were expended. That way they can recover them without damaging them. It is not uncommon to do this with shooting scenes.

 

[TallPine]

A deputy's life for two ounces of marjuana .....

 

[LiquidTension]

You hit that one squarely on the head, TallPine.

 

[DeltaElite]

Some loser killed a cop over 2 ounces of mota.

All this heartache in the worthless, War on Drugs.

You get one jury verdict of not guilty and then it is done.
This guy had a hung jury, a thrown out verdict and finally a conviction. That counts as one in the "legal system".
Double Jeopardy is about being tried again for the same crime after being cleared by a jury of your "peers".
Such as being cleared of homicide and then being tried for assault with a deadly weapon.

Now cops get tried for federal "civil rights" violations if they don't get convicted on local criminal charges. That is Double Jeopardy.
Just look at the cops in the Rodney King incident, cleared of criminal charges, but convicted of federal "civil rights" charges.
I guess Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to cops.
What a "legal system".

 

[Standing Wolf]

More Great Victories in the famous war on drugs.

 

[Blackhawk]

Sarcasm noted, Standing Wolf, and you're right on!