Garda Search Property damage

Hello, I'm wondering if anybody here would have enough knowledge of Irish law to help me flesh out this situation.

So today a bunch of Gardaí conducted a warranted search of my house. I am the landlord and not currently present, a company maintains the rental, not me. They were looking to find a "grow house" but alas found nothing significant I know of. However, I have a section of the house locked to keep my personal effects, and they broke the lock on the door. Because this just happened, I'm not sure of the cost.

I called the garda station and spoke about the issue, and he fist started saying that I could apply by speaking to "Sean", somebody he knew, before switching to the State Claims Agency. Obviously I don't trust this Garda. The state claims agency generally also uphold that if they were warranted, they have the right to use forcible entry, despite the innocence.

I have gone ahead and sent an email about the claim to the agency, but I also want to deal with this essentially unwarranted search issue. I've sent an email to the District Court asking for a copy of the warrant. I should be able to get that, but after that, then what? This was obviously a bogus tip with terrible evidence that they chose to follow, damaging my property in the progress. If I don't get the claim from the state agency, what courses of action could I take?

I know there's always heading to a solicitor, but I really don't care as long as they pay for the damage.

I know there's the ombudsman, but I don't know if i should head for him right away. There has to be evidence of negligence before I do that. Maybe get more evidence from the warrant first....
Any ideas? Anyone had similar experiences?

endacl

Looks like you got lost on your way to here...

NinetyTwoTeam

You can file a complaint with the ombudsman but they're a joke they won't do anything.

Here's what will happen, they'll lie, say the door was like that when they got there, and unless you have witnesses of them breaking it, they'll say there's no evidence they damaged anything and that will be it.

NinetyTwoTeam

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

You can file a complaint with the ombudsman but they're a joke they won't do anything.

Here's what will happen, they'll lie, say the door was like that when they got there, and unless you have witnesses of them breaking it, they'll say there's no evidence they damaged anything and that will be it.

Actually I have a recorded phone call of the garda saying he broke it, if that helps? I've learnt from past experi9its always good to hold onto those kind of calls.

Peregrinus

You move from this:

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

So today a bunch of Gardaí conducted a warranted search of my house . . .

to this:

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

. . . I also want to deal with this essentially unwarranted search issue.

Is there some detail you forgot to mention in your account? Nothing you say suggests that the search was "essentially unwarranted". Similarly you say that:

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

This was obviously a bogus tip with terrible evidence that they chose to follow, damaging my property in the progress.

But that's not obvious at all, at least from anything in your post. We have no idea what information the warrante was based upon. Nor will you be able to find out very easily.

I wouldn't really bother scrutinising the basis for the warrant, if I were you. It's not your concern. They had a warrant, and unless it was actually invalid (and you don't say that you think it was, and nothing in your post suggests that it was) then this is going to be dealt with as a lawful search, authorised by a warrant.

By all means follow it up with the State Claims people. You should also check whether your property insurance gives you any cover for this kind of damage.

Mellor

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

They were looking to find a "grow house" but alas found nothing significant I know of...


...This was obviously a bogus tip with terrible evidence that they chose to follow, damaging my property in the progress...

That's an interesting username you picked. Bodhsativa. Quite the coincidence also. http://bfy.tw/32uh

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You move from this:

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

So today a bunch of Gardaí conducted a warranted search of my house . . .

to this:

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

. . . I also want to deal with this essentially unwarranted search issue.

Is there some detail you forgot to mention in your account?  Nothing you say suggests that the search was "essentially unwarranted".  Similarly you say that:

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

This was obviously a bogus tip with terrible evidence that they chose to follow, damaging my property in the progress.

But that's not obvious at all, at least from anything in your post.  We have no idea what information the warrante was based upon.  Nor will you be able to find out very easily.

I wouldn't really bother scrutinising the basis for the warrant, if I were you.  It's not your concern.  They had a warrant, and unless it was actually invalid (and you don't say that you think it was, and nothing in your post suggests that it was) then this is going to be dealt with as a lawful search, authorised by a warrant.

By all means follow it up with the State Claims people.  You should also check whether your property insurance gives you any cover for this kind of damage.

Well, I've lived in the house until just recently., there are new tenants in the house now, and it gets monthly visits.  So the "essentially unwarranted" part is based on the fact their evidence was obviously negligible enough to end up  searching  an innocent person's house and finding nothing.

The garda did say that he got a tip months ago so it was a bogus tip. They followed up rumors, or lies, as it was. I would consider that negligence.

Peregrinus

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

Well, I've lived in the house until just recently., there are new tenants in the house now, and it gets monthly visits.  So the "essentially unwarranted" part is based on the fact their evidence was obviously negligible enough to end up  searching  an innocent person's house and finding nothing.

The garda did say that he got a tip months ago so it was a bogus tip. They followed up rumors, or lies, as it was. I would consider that negligence.

How are the guards to know that tips are bogus, rumours or lies, except by following them up and seeing where they lead? From your argument, every search which fails to find what is sought is "essentially unwarranted". You can "consider that negligence" if you like, but separate your feelings about this out from your efforts to seek compensation. These are not arguments which will fly either with the State Claims Agency or in the courts.

Mellor

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

Well, I've lived in the house until just recently., there are new tenants in the house now, and it gets monthly visits.  So the "essentially unwarranted" part is based on the fact their evidence was obviously negligible enough to end up  searching  an innocent person's house and finding nothing.

The garda did say that he got a tip months ago so it was a bogus tip. They followed up rumors, or lies, as it was. I would consider that negligence.

A search turning up something doesn't mean a search was unwarranted.
Even if somebody ends up being completely innocent, the warrant isn't invalid.

NinetyTwoTeam

Mellor wrote: »

That's an interesting username you picked. Bodhsativa. Quite the coincidence also. http://bfy.tw/32uh

That's about as valid an indicator of guilt as the tip the bungling cops got.

Your avatar is Oscar the Grouch who lives in a trash can. Why aren't you being investigated for vagrancy?

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

Well, I've lived in the house until just recently., there are new tenants in the house now, and it gets monthly visits.  So the "essentially unwarranted" part is based on the fact their evidence was obviously negligible enough to end up  searching  an innocent person's house and finding nothing.

The garda did say that he got a tip months ago so it was a bogus tip. They followed up rumors, or lies, as it was. I would consider that negligence.

A search turning up something doesn't mean a search was unwarranted.
Even if somebody ends up being completely innocent, the warrant isn't invalid.

Actually, I came up with it just now. I made the account just for this post. It's a pun on Bodhisattva. My own way of trying to come to peace with this drug search situation.
No, the warrant may not be invalid solely for innocence but I've read cases where their investigation work was deemed negligent,and so the search was deemed unwarranted by an ombudsman.
For some reason I can't quote anyone on my phone

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

Well, I've lived in the house until just recently., there are new tenants in the house now, and it gets monthly visits.  So the "essentially unwarranted" part is based on the fact their evidence was obviously negligible enough to end up  searching  an innocent person's house and finding nothing.

The garda did say that he got a tip months ago so it was a bogus tip. They followed up rumors, or lies, as it was. I would consider that negligence.

How are the guards to know that tips are bogus, rumours or lies, except by following them up and seeing where they lead?  From your argument, every search which fails to find what is sought is "essentially unwarranted".  You can "consider that negligence" if you like, but separate your feelings about this out from your efforts to seek compensation.  These are not arguments which will fly either with the State Claims Agency or in the courts.

So your telling me what won't hold up. Tell me what will. Thats what I'm asking. Frankly , Gardaí have tools for investigation  Dogs, thermal cameras, general information gathering. A crap tip isn't good investiginves action. And following up every malicious tip or rumour is definitely negligence. Violating innocent peoples rights and causing damage.is negligent. I mean the property mamager has a key, as does the neighbour. Just call her or go next door. Ask the tenants, they are fully aware of this.

P. S. I fail to see how any search that does finds a person innocent isn't essentially unwarranted. Warranted means there was cause or reason. Finding a person innocent means you actually didn't have good cause or reason.

NinetyTwoTeam

Unfortunately, the police in this country have done much worse than this and gotten away with it.

And if you take a case against them via the ombudsman, you better hope you don't have to deal with them again because they will have that on record and if they can do anything to get you back, they will. That's how they roll. So it's up to you what you do but what outcome do you think is likely when the gardai are investigating themselves?

NinetyTwoTeam

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

Unfortunately, the police in this country have done much worse than this and gotten away with it.

And if you take a case against them via the ombudsman, you better hope you don't have to deal with them again because they will have that on record and if they can do anything to get you back, they will. That's how they roll. So it's up to you what you do but what outcome do you think is likely when the gardai are investigating themselves?

Well, may as well go for it so, since I left the country.

jimd2

OP, are you currently in the country? I my opinion in a circumstance like this you need to high tail it to your property and determine first hand what the damage is and also arrange to meet the gardai in question.

In my experience, contrary to what others might say, the gardai are OK to deal with and you can escalate to a higher level if needs be.

But it is much much easier if you are at the property or dealing face to face with Garda management.

jimd2

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

Well, may as well go for it so, since I left the country.

Just see this response now

jimd2

jimd2 wrote: »

OP, are you currently in the country? I my opinion in a circumstance like this you need to high tail it to your property and determine first hand what the damage is and also arrange to meet the gardai in question.

In my experience, contrary to what others might say, the gardai are OK to deal with and you can escalate to a higher level if needs be.

But it is much much easier if you are at the property or dealing face to face with Garda management.

Unfortunately  I'm not in the country. The Garda I spoke to was straightforward and gave me his Reg without asking but got dodgy when I asked about the damage. I'd say he was hasty to break the lock and he knows it, there probably are repercussions for the Gardaí if they cause damage and people are innocent. the person looking after the property will examine things, and I'll see how things will go with another phone call. Thank you for you help. Also thank you, NinetyTwoTeam.

Peregrinus

Look, we don't know what information led to the raid. You say it was a "crap tip", but the truth is we don't know. They got a warrant, which means they had evidence that satisfied a District Judge. On the other hand, they didn't find anything. There's huge gap in between those two facts about which we have no information at all.

Given that you have no information, it's going to be very hard to mount a compensation claim on the basis that the warrant was wrongly issued. In practical terms, since you can't prove that it was wrongly issued, you're going to have to proceed on the basis that it was rightly issued. You may argue that "following up every malicious tip or rumour is definitely negligence", but so what? There's no evidence that the guards do follow up every tip; all we know is that they followed up this tip, and that they had evidence which satisfied a District Judge that they were justified in doing so. We don't even know that this tip was "malicious".

I think you're flogging a dead horse here. I understand your feelings, but I think the more productive question to explore is not whether the guards should have searched at all, but whether they conducted the search properly.

The fact that a key was readily available, but they chose to break the door down instead, is much more helpful. SFAIK the theory here is that (a) the constitutional right to private property can be limited for the public good, and (b) it's for the public good that the police can execute search warrants, but (c) search warrants only authorise them to use such force, and inflict such damage, as is reasonable in the circumstances. So your argument would be, it's not reasonable to kick the door in when, in fact, you could just go next door and get the key.

To run that argument, there's still a lot of detail that needs filling in. For example, were the tenants present when the property was raided? Did they say that a key was held next door? If the answer to either of these question is "no", is it reasonable to expect the guards to know that a key was accessible?

And there may be other similar points you could make. But in general I have strong sense that objecting to the way the search was conducted is going to offer better prospects of success than objecting to the fact that it was conducted at all. A court has already accepted that there was sufficient reason to conduct a search, and they did so on the basis of evidence presented, and we don't know what that evidence was.

I've already suggested, check you insurance policy. This may be covered.

And another avenue occurs to me. You're not entitled to possession of these premises; your tenants are. (The search warrant was executed against them, not against you.) They have an obligation under the terms of their lease to hand the premises back in good order at the conclusion of the tenancy. They're not responsible for wear-and-tear but they do have to make good any damage done. And this is damage. Just sayin'.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, we don't know what information led to the raid.  You say it was a "crap tip", but the truth is we don't know.  They got a warrant, which means they had evidence that satisfied a District Judge.  On the other hand, they didn't find anything.  There's huge gap in between those two facts about which we have no information at all.  

Given that you have no information, it's going to be very hard to mount a compensation claim on the basis that the warrant was wrongly issued.  In practical terms, since you can't prove that it was wrongly issued, you're going to have to proceed on the basis that it was rightly issued.  You may argue that "following up every malicious tip or rumour is definitely negligence", but so what?  There's no evidence that the guards do follow up every tip; all we know is that they followed up this tip, and that they had evidence which satisfied a District Judge that they were justified in doing so.  We don't even know that this tip was "malicious".  

I think you're flogging a dead horse here.  I understand your feelings, but I think the more productive question to explore is not whether the guards should have searched at all, but whether they conducted the search properly.  

The fact that a key was readily available, but they chose to break the door down instead, is much more helpful.  SFAIK the theory here is that (a) the constitutional right to private property can be limited for the public good, and (b) it's for the public good that the police can execute search warrants, but (c) search warrants only authorise them to use such force, and inflict such damage, as is reasonable in the circumstances.  So your argument would be, it's not reasonable to kick the door in when, in fact, you could just go next door and get the key.

To run that argument, there's still a lot of detail that needs filling in.  For example, were the tenants present when the property was raided?  Did they say that a key was held next door?  If the answer to either of these question is "no", is it reasonable to expect the guards to know that a key was accessible?  

And there may be other similar points you could make.  But in general I have strong sense that objecting to the way the search was conducted is going to offer better prospects of success than objecting to the fact that it was conducted at all.  A court has already accepted that there was sufficient reason to conduct a search, and they did so on the basis of evidence presented, and we don't know what that evidence was.

I've already suggested, check you insurance policy.  This may be covered.

And another avenue occurs to me.  You're not entitled to possession of these premises; your tenants are.  (The search warrant was executed against them, not against you.) They have an obligation under the terms of their lease to hand the premises back in good order at the conclusion of the tenancy.  They're not responsible for wear-and-tear but they do have to make good any damage done. And this is damage.  Just sayin'.

Ah, okay. Understood. They definitely  knew that there was a property manager with a key. I'm not sure about the neighbour, but had they contacted the manager she would have told them as much too. This is more the kind of info I needed. Thanks very much, everyone. I have my launching pointp ❤️

Mellor

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

That's about as valid an indicator of guilt as the tip the bungling cops got.

How do you know what tip the cops got? Or what his tenants are in to?

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

Actually, I came up with it just now. I made the account just for this post. It's a pun on Bodhisattva. My own way of trying to come to peace with this drug search situation.

Fair enough. I didn't notice your post count.
But surely you see the questions it raises.


You mentioned you are out of the country. Where abouts are you?
If you are in europe and will be home soon, you could deal with it then. But if you are in australia for example, might be best to get agent to take photos and the like ASAP.

padser

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

P. S. I fail to see how any search that does finds a person innocent isn't essentially unwarranted. Warranted means there was cause or reason. Finding a person innocent means you actually didn't have good cause or reason.

I think you are confusing the verb "warranted" with a legal document known as a "warrant"

If there was a document from a court authorising a search (a "warrant") then the search was not "unwarranted" in the sense that most would understand the phrase.

The argument you are trying to make is that it was "unjustified"(just to make phrasing easier), and you are using the fact nothing was found as rationale in and of itself that the search was unjustified.

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't hold up to even the most cursory of scrutiny. It's easy to imagine a situation where a search of a property is fully justified because of the strong evidence that something was happening at that property. It's also easy to imagine a situation where nothing might be found (e.g. something had recently been moved, evidence cleaned etc). The mere fact that nothing was found doesn't make the search unjustified.

Peregrinus

Evie Hot Material wrote: »

P. S. I fail to see how any search that does finds a person innocent isn't essentially unwarranted. Warranted means there was cause or reason. Finding a person innocent means you actually didn't have good cause or reason.

A search doesn't find a person innocent. The fact that I didn't find the body in your back garden doesn't mean that you're not the murderer; you may just have been more creative about corpse disposal than I have given you credit for.

Nor does it find a person guilty; if i do find the body in your back garden, that doesn't necessarily mean that you put it there.

Searches are not about innocence or guilt; they're about collecting evidence. This particular search appears to have been an unsuccessful attempt to collect evidence, but there could be any number of reasons for that, and you can't move from there to an inference about guilt or innocence. That's not what searches are for.

NinetyTwoTeam

Mellor wrote: »

How do you know what tip the cops got? Or what his tenants are in to?


Fair enough. I didn't notice your post count.
But surely you see the questions it raises.
.

Oh ffs, read the post. Obviously the point I was making is that you saying his username having sativa in it means he's into marijuana and the search was justified is ridiculous, just like it is ridiculous to break into a single locked room in a house because you think it's a grow house, based off of an obvious dud tip.

A grow house would be apparent from the moment you walk in, you can't keep a whole grow operation in one room, a few plants maybe but in general there would be plenty of other indicators outside the room, smell for starters

They didn't need to break the door down, they did it because they were desperate not to look like total numpties, and because they know they'll get away with it, even though they shouldn't. They knew they probably were on a dud tip by the time they got to the locked door but they had nothing to lose by breaking it and they like to make a show of force, especially when they have egg on their face, instead of admitting a mistake was made for some reason cops will always ramp up the aggression instead to overcompensate. That's just how they are.

And it's this same mindset that thinks a social media username means someone is the reefer Baron.

Mod
92 Team
You seem to be on an anti-AGS rant. Pls do not post again on this thread

tedpan

So many new accounts, boring at this stage...

Mellor

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

Oh ffs, read the post. Obviously the point I was making is that you saying his username having sativa in it means he's into marijuana and the search was justified is ridiculous, just like it is ridiculous to break into a single locked room in a house because you think it's a grow house, based off of an obvious dud tip.

Where did I say the username made the search justified? I was just pointing out the link between the two. It's not exactly an everyday word. I'm not saying knowing it makes him a drug dealer (I knew it FFS). But a huge difference between a heavy marijuana user and a little old lady being searched.

Suggesting they ignored a room because it was locked is frankly ridiculous.

A grow house would be apparent from the moment you walk in, you can't keep a whole grow operation in one room, a few plants maybe but in general there would be plenty of other indicators outside the room, smell for starters

Even if the room could only hold two plants, they'd have to seize them given they had a warrant. And sure a big grow op would stink. But they can't exactly rule out the presence of other drugs. We don't know what sort of info they received.

They didn't need to break the door down, they did it because they were desperate not to look like total numpties, and because they know they'll get away with it, even though they shouldn't.

Of course they did. It would be incompetence if they didn't. The OP is aggrieved that they could have waited for a key, but he's not foolishly suggesting them could have ignored it.

And it's this same mindset that thinks a social media username means someone is the reefer Baron.

You've a vivid imagination. I highly doubt OP or his tenants were suspected drug barons.
You are making a lot of strange assumptions.

Look, I've only browsed through the most recent posts.
I'll say this, yes, "unjustified" is a better term. Well go with that. Considering they lacked justification, they should up and pay for the damages. I don't care about the search, I care about the unnecessary costs.

So here's an update:

I took the advice of the first post and spoke to flac.ie. Unfortunately, because I'm abroad they couldn't give me full on legal advice, just a few words over the phone. I told her the story, along with the Gardaí dodging the questions about the compensation. The woman said she can't really give full advice but told me my first port of call should be to speak with the superintendent, and if that doesn't work, don't hesitate and go straight to the ombudsman.

The other piece of good advice was to just talk to the Gardaí and see how it goes. So I did.
I called the station, and i got a seemingly more experienced garda than last time. I told him that I sought legal advice and would like to speak with the superintendent.
He took a look at the case and saw the route I was going down. I think he made the call to stop with the long drawn out hassle it would be for all of us and just sort it out there and then. While he couldn't give me the gritty details, he gave me a general run down of what was going on waaay better than the Gardaí who carried out the search. Obviously i can't mention the reasons here. But all in all, it really had very little to do with the house or me.
All in all, he gave me a few more avenues for compensation, so I'll receive the cost of damages one way or another. No negative marks in my name or the property.

I never spoke to the superintendent , but I don't think I will need to. This one Garda was straightforward, respectful and honest. He probably is familiar with the long road these things can take if you don't nip it in the bud.

All in all, I'm happy out. Except for the part where my personal effects are now open to the tenants. That's ****e, and, frankly, still irresponsible and incompetent, but it is temporary.
Also, the Gardaí drug squad were in The house 7 minutes in total. So they could've waited for the key, but we're just Mod deletion; abusive. Wish theose guys had as much sense as the guy on the phone.

Thanks for the help guys!