This post by  Radley Balko at Reason got me thinking.  The post is about another “isolated” incident of cops, acting on an anonymous tip, breaking into someone’s home to search for drugs, hydroponic marijuana in this instance.  My favorite line from the story is, “Then I asked them if a marijuana plant could grow inside my underwear drawer.”

The story itself isn’t a new one, where an ordinary family becomes the focus of a DEA raid.  Nothing is found.  They committed no crime.  The DEA wreaked havoc on their lives, and then it just left.

“What added salt to this injury was after the situation – house is searched, door is broken – they just walked away,” the Llorentes’ lawyer said. “Like, ‘We’re the government. We made a mistake.'”

What troubles me is that Llorentes’ had to get a lawyer and were left by our protectors, our government, with the disruption of their lives and a broken door.  Putting the impact on their personal security aside, what about the door?  Radley’s post already deals with the big picture of the raid, leaving me this tiny gap to talk about the little picture, the collateral damage.

I see government causing wrong, but relatively small, harm all the time.  Usually, the people who have suffered the harm are victims in the truest sense of the word.  They did absolutely nothing to cause or invite the problem.  Yet, in the wake of government’s actions, they are left with a problem.  Should the victim of the government be left holding the bag?

The problem is that the hard costs associated with the damage are frequently not sufficient to warrant a lawsuit against the government.  Indeed, it would cost more for the attorney than to just fix the door, making it a counterproductive option.  Sure, attorneys fees are recoverable, but that’s at the end of the case (meaning that somebody has to be in the interim) and there is still the burden of pursuing litigation, with its attendant time demands.  This is a significant burden.  Should the victim of the government be required to sue?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the victims of government arrogance, incompetence or just plain mistake often have no other choice.  There is a lot of government out there, ranging from the big bad federales to the little local municipalities, and they all seem to suffer the same ability to cause harm to those they exist to protect.  It would be nice to think that they should just do the right thing, but there is some bone in the heads of government officials that seems to make it way too difficult to admit error, no less gross incompetence, that presents them from correcting their mistakes.

So the Llorentes are left to either eat the cost or litigate.  Neither choice is acceptable.  Neither choice reflects how government should be allowed to treat its citizens.. 

What is needed is an alternative mechanism for people to obtain redress against the government for damage caused by clear and indisputable governmental error.  This would be a means for people to pay the cost of repair, restoration and correction of government mis- and malfeasance promptly and without need for an attorney.  It’s bad enough that the courts have viewed government “accidents” such as the one perpetrated on the Llorentes as being inevitable and an unfortunate collateral consequences of our war on (insert whatever war we are fighting today). 

When the DEA, or the cops, break down your door by mistake, and leave without so much as an apology (not that an apology is the answer), and your left standing there wondering how your life just went from quiet and normal to a nightmare at the hands of governmental stupidity, there must be a way to stop our beloved government from adding insult to injury. 

And if the cost of repair came out of the paycheck of the genius responsible for the screw-up in the first place, perhaps our law enforcement officers would be a bit more cautious before breaking down doors.  But then, that might inhibit them from doing their job, and we would certainly never want that to happen.  Would we?