Connect with us

Published

1 year ago

on

In June of 2022, law enforcement arrived at a modest home on East Calvert Street in South Bend, Indiana. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades into the house, launched flash-bangs through the front door, smashed windows, destroyed the security cameras, punched holes in the walls, ripped a panel and fan from the bathroom wall and ceiling, ransacked and tossed furniture, snatched curtains down, and broke a mirror and various storage containers. The tear gas bombs left openings in the walls, floors, and ceiling. Shattered glass lay strewn across the interior, and a litany of personal belongingsfrom clothing, beds, and electronics to childhood drawings and family photoswere ruined.

Police had their sights set on a man named John Parnell Thomas, then a fugitive, who is now behind bars. But law enforcement didn’t apprehend Thomas at the residence on East Calvert, as he did not own the home, did not have any relationship with its owners, and had never been there.

The actual owner, Amy Hadley, was not a suspect in law enforcement’s investigation. She was, in some sense, punished anyway, as the government left her to pick up the tab after officers dismantled and wrecked much of her home.

A faulty investigation led police to Hadley’s house. An officer with St. Joseph County attempted to locate Thomas via Facebook, concluding erroneously that he was accessing social media from the IP address tied to the Hadley residence.

He was not.

On June 10, 2022, upon surrounding the house, police ordered those inside to exit. Hadley’s son, Noahwho was 15 years old at the timewas the only one home; he came out with his hands up as instructed. Police immediately conceded on the body camera footage that he was not who they were looking for. They placed him in double handcuffs, put him in a caged squad car, and took him to the police station anyway.

A neighbor called Hadley to let her know something dire appeared to be happening outside her home, prompting her to return to the residence. She told law enforcement that Thomas was not inside and that her security cameras, which would be destroyed soon after, would have alerted her if a stranger had forced his way in. A South Bend SWAT team, along with backup from the St. Joseph Police Department, proceeded forthwith. Over 30 officers were dispatched to Hadley’s home.

The result forced Hadley and her son to sleep in her car for several nights as the toxic fumes lingered, while her daughter, Kayla, stayed elsewhere until the space was safe to live in again.

Hadley, who is employed as a medical assistant, does not dispute that police had a valid warrant and a right to search her property. What she does dispute, however, is that the government can leave her to shoulder the financial burden of their mistake. After contacting the South Bend Police Department, the St. Joseph County Police Department, and St. Joseph County, she received a mixture of demurrals and radio silence, according to a lawsuit recently filed in the St. Joseph County Circuit Court.

A year and a half post-raid, those agencies have paid her nothing. Her home insurance helped her in part but declined to pay the full amount, which totaled at least $16,000 in damages, per her suit, leaving her thousands of dollars in the hole.

It’s not the first time the government has destroyed an innocent person’s property and left them to pick up the pieces, both literally and figuratively. Hadley’s experience once again requires that we answer the following: When law enforcement wrecks someone’s house or business in pursuit of public safety, who should bear the cost?

Carlos Pena, a small business owner in Southern California, recently filed a suit that probes the same question, although his attorneys say the answer is clear. In August 2022, about two months after the raid on Hadley’s house, a Los Angeles SWAT team threw over 30 tear gas canisters into Pena’s print shop while attempting to catch a fugitive who had forcefully ejected Pena and barricaded himself inside. His inventory and most of his equipment were ruined, costing him about $60,000 in damages and thousands in revenue from lost clients. After building his business, NoHo Printing & Graphics, for over three decades, he now operates at a much-constrained capacity out of his garage.

Like many policies, Pena’s insurance told him they were not responsible for damage caused by the government. But Los Angeles has, at different times, ignored him or told him they are not liable, according to his lawsuit , which was filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Whether or not such victims are entitled to relief comes down to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which promises that people are entitled to “just compensation” when their property is usurped, or in this case destroyed, for public use. But various jurisdictions have been able to dance around that thanks to some federal jurisprudence which has held that actions taken under “police powers” are exempt from the pledge in the Takings Clause. “Apprehending a dangerous fugitive is in the public interest, and ‘in all fairness and justice,’ the cost of apprehending such fugitives should be borne by the public as a whole,” says Hadley’s suit, “not by an unlucky and innocent property owner whose property is put to a public use to serve the public’s interest.”

Another plaintiff, Vicki Baker, sued the city of McKinney, Texas, in 2021 after a local SWAT team caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage to her home and rendered her daughter’s dog deaf and blind. Again, a fugitive had barricaded himself inside; again, Baker was not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing; again, her insurance declined to pay. When she sought assistance from the government, they told her they weren’t liable and that she didn’t meet the definition of a “victim.” “I’ve lost everything,” Baker, in her 70s and struggling with cancer, told me shortly after filing her suit .

Following a lengthy court battle, a federal judge allowed her to proceed before a jury, characterizing the law that threatened to block her suit as “untenable.” That jury awarded her about $60,000 in June 2022. And then in October of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that, somewhat begrudgingly, ruling that current precedent foreclosed relief on the basis that police acted by “necessity during an active emergency.”

“For future victims, [this] would mean that you’re probably out of luck under the federal Constitution from the 5th Circuit, unless this case gets reversed,” Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney for the Institute for Justice which represents Baker, told me in October. “It’s a pretty big deal.” Fortunately for Baker, he added, the jury’s award should survive under the Texas Constitution, as opposed to the U.S. Constitutionalthough she only got that judgment after government stonewalling and a protracted court battle, which not everyone has the time and resources to finish.

As for Hadley, it remains unclear if she will receive compensation after the government acted on its error-prone investigation and left her home a shell of what it once was. But one thing is almost certain: There will be more innocent people like her in the future whose lives are upended by the state, only to be told that’s just their tough luck.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Business

John Lewis Partnership profits leap but no bonus for third consecutive year

Published

11 mins ago

on

March 13, 2025

By

John Lewis Partnership profits leap but no bonus for third consecutive year

The John Lewis Partnership (JLP) has revealed a 73% rise in annual profits but says staff will receive no bonus for the third year in a row.

The employee-owned business, behind John Lewis department stores and Waitrose supermarkets, said earnings over the 12 months to January came in at £97m – up from the £56m achieved in the previous year.

Group sales rose 3% to £12.8bn, driven by Waitrose, in a year when the department store chain restored its ‘Never Knowingly Undersold’ price promise that was scrapped in 2022.

Money latest: Top chef reveals one thing customers should know about their bill

New chair Jason Tarry signalled a further £600m investment in its operations on the back of the improved profit performance and a focus on regular pay for staff, known as partners, over a one-off reward.

A 7.4% wage rise was revealed earlier this month as the business moved to bolster retention amid the barren spell for annual bonuses that has only seen one paid out over the last five years.

The last financial year marked only the fourth time since 1953 that JLP had not awarded a bonus.

Mr Tarry, who succeeded Dame Sharon White six months ago amid a post pandemic turnaround plan that included the closure of underperforming stores and thousands of job losses, said “careful consideration” had been given to the bonus.

Jason Tarry, pic: John Lewis
Image:
Jason Tarry. Pic: JLP

He told the group’s 73,000 partners: “These are solid results, which show that our customers are responding well to our investments in quality products, value and service.

“We have made good progress with much more still to do.

“Looking forward, I see significant opportunity for growth from both our Waitrose and John Lewis brands.

“Our focus will be on enhancing what makes these brands truly special for our customers.

“This will involve considerable catch-up investment in our stores and supply chain.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Apple vs Home Office encryption court battle must be held in public, say MPs

Published

11 mins ago

on

March 13, 2025

By

Apple vs Home Office encryption court battle must be held in public, say MPs

Any court showdown between Apple and the Home Office over customer data must be held in public, MPs have demanded.

It comes after the tech giant announced last month that it would no longer offer UK customers its most advanced, end-to-end security encryption feature for cloud data storage following a row with the government.

The dispute was sparked when ministers reportedly decided to issue Apple with a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) demanding the right to see the user data.

Legally, neither of the parties can publicly confirm the existence of the order.

Politics latest: Cabinet minister apologises in Commons

However, ComputerWeekly and others have reported that Apple has launched an appeal against the TCN, with an initial hearing set to be heard on Friday before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal at the High Court in London.

A court listing document shows a behind-closed-doors application is due to be held before Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Johnson.

Veteran Tory MP and civil rights campaigner Sir David Davis told Sky News: “If the Home Office wants to have effectively unfettered access to the private data of the (innocent) general public, they should explain their case in front of the public.”

The notice shown to Apple users wanting to use Advanced Data Protection
Image:
The notice shown to Apple users wanting to use Advanced Data Protection

Also speaking to Sky News, Liberal Democrat technology spokesperson Victoria Collins said: “The move by the government endangers people here in the UK and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian regimes across the globe…

“I’m proud to add my name to the call for the hearing on this crucial issue to be open to the public. People deserve to know what’s happening to their private personal information.”

Read more from Sky News:
Starmer ‘disappointed’ about Trump steel tariffs
Russian captain arrested over ship crash
Hostages killed after train hijacked

Reform UK chief whip Lee Anderson said: “If the government wishes to pry on its people, they can make that claim in public. This now puts the security and privacy of the British people at risk.

“The government should have as little involvement in our personal lives as possible. Not in our tweets, not in our text messages, and certainly not with full access to our phones.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is your iPhone data less secure?

Prior to its removal in the UK, Apple‘s Advanced Data Protection service allowed users the ability to encrypt their data in such a way that no one, not even the tech company, would be able to access it.

Critics fear the use of end-to-end encryption – where third-party access is impossible – could help criminals like paedophiles hide their activity from authorities.

However, providing access to encrypted data, whether to a government or a company, provides potential pathways for third parties such as hackers to access information.

Successive governments have said they want to restrict the use of the function.

Apple has never commented on the TCN, but said in a previous statement: “Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before.

“Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the future in the United Kingdom.

“As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will.”

The Home Office declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

Ousted Reform MP Rupert Lowe consulting lawyers over libel action, Sky News understands

Published

11 mins ago

on

March 13, 2025

By

Ousted Reform MP Rupert Lowe consulting lawyers over libel action, Sky News understands

Rupert Lowe is consulting lawyers about taking possible libel action against Reform UK, Sky News understands.

The Great Yarmouth MP has accused the party of making “untrue and false allegations” about him after he criticised leader Nigel Farage in the media, sparking a bitter public row.

Politics Live: Starmer promises to ‘keep all options on the table’ after UK hit by Trump tariffs on steel

A day after the 67-year-old questioned whether Mr Farage could make it as prime minister, Reform UK announced on Friday it had referred him to police and suspended him, alleging he made “verbal threats” against chairman Zia Yousaf.

The Met has launched an investigation into these claims, which Mr Lowe has vehemently denied.

Reform has also claimed it has received complaints from two female employees about serious bullying in Mr Lowe’s constituency office.

The now independent MP has strenuously denied these claims as well, saying the allegations do not relate to him and were made by staff who themselves faced disciplinary action.

Mr Lowe believes he is the victim of a “witch hunt” after speaking out against the party’s leadership in an interview with the Daily Mail that was published last week, in which he challenged Mr Farage’s “messianic” tendencies.

He has not ruled out joining the Conservatives or another political party, while Mr Farage has said there is “no way back” for the suspended MP and accused him of being “out to cause maximum damage” to Reform UK.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Lowe suspension was ‘right judgement’

The feud could deepen still with Mr Lowe now mulling legal action over claims made about him during the ongoing war of words, it is understood.

The former Southampton FC chairman has accused Mr Farage of spreading “outright lies” after he told GB News that he “knows for a fact” Mr Lowe was informed of a parliamentary investigation into bullying allegations on 29 Feb and gave an interview with the Mail “shortly after that”.

According to the Mail, the interview was held on 25 February – days before Mr Lowe received a letter from Reform’s chief whip Lee Anderson informing him of concerns over his conduct.

The letter, seen by Sky News, was from Reform rather than parliament and says the parliamentary party has determined an independent investigation is the best course of action.

Read More:
Starmer ‘disappointed’ about Trump steel tariffs
Labour MPs criticise impending benefit cuts

Mr Lowe has urged Mr Farage to “apologise, retract and correct the record,” posting on X: “To suggest I used the interview to deflect from any investigation is factually untrue. I have heard absolutely nothing from parliament about any of this.”

Mr Lowe also denies claims made by Mr Anderson that he has not co-operated with the independent inquiry into his behaviour.

Last night, seven members of his team put their names on a statement coming to Mr Lowe’s defence, saying he is a “good, decent and honest man”, that they have never witnessed “violent or vicious” behaviour and allegations of bullying are “robustly denied by all of us”.

X

This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.


Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.

Enable Cookies
Allow Cookies Once

Sky News has contacted Reform UK for comment.

The row poses danger for a party that has its sights on entering government at the next election after a meteoric rise in the polls.

In his interview with the Mail, Mr Lowe said it was “too early to know” if Mr Farage will become prime minister and warned Reform remains a “protest party led by the Messiah” under the Clacton MP.

He also claimed that he was “barely six months into being an MP” himself and “in the betting to be the next prime minister”.

During Mr Farage’s online falling out with Elon Musk, in which he said Reform needed a new leader, Mr Lowe drew praise from the Space X billionaire.

In a move seen as a hint of a new splinter group, another ousted Reform UK politician, former deputy leader Ben Habib, told The Daily Telegraph that Mr Lowe was a “good friend” and he was “constantly in touch with” him.

Continue Reading

Trending