- Thanks to Curiosity Stream
for keeping "Legal Eagle" in the air, which now
comes with Nebula for free. Get 40% off of both with
documentary distancing discount. Link in the description. Finally, at the end of their rope, the police shoot more gas
munitions through every window in the house to flush Seacat out. Something has to be done, and fast. (intense music) What would you do if you lost your home, not because of fire, or flood, or other horrifying natural disaster? What would you do if your home was taken and destroyed by the
very people you trusted to protect you? The police in your own community. For most of us, our home is
our most valuable possession. Not only in terms of monetary value, but also regarding our own
personal safety and security. And don't forget about
the sentimental bond many of us feel with our homes. We spend most of our time at home, relaxing with loved ones,
playing with our kids, and celebrating family occasions. So is it ever okay for the government to just destroy our homes without notice in the name of public good? Imagine that while you're
out with your family enjoying a nice day of shopping, the local police blow up your house, (explosion) reducing your sanctuary to rubble, all in order to catch a felon. Frightening, right? But it can happen, and it did happen to one family in Colorado in 2015. Once the initial shock
of the family wore off, they wondered will the
government compensate us for the total destruction of our home? Well, that's the question
that we must answer in the case of "The House
the Police Blew Up." (glass breaking) Submitted for you adjudication. Summer time, 2015. A beautiful cloudless
day in Greenwood Village, just south of Denver, Colorado. The happy family of Leo Lech lives an idyllic suburban life in their comfortable 2,000
square foot, two-story home. They're a busy, working group. Patriarch Leo and his wife, their son John and his young family. The weeks are rushed, and seem to fly by, but they get to relax just
a little on the weekends. As it is for many Americans, their house is their prized possession. They take great pride in its appearance. And on this particular day, the Lechs are planning a family outing with the home in mind. As luck would have it, the family sets off on a fun day of shopping for the home renovation. They're particularly excited
because they've been saving for this home makeover project
for more than two years. First, they plan to visit a flooring store to choose some new hardwood floors. Then they're headed to the home center to pick up a few odds and ends. The only one not excited for
this big weekend shopping trip is the family's nine year old son. He decides to stay back and take care of the Lech's two hunting dogs. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, another man is planning a
very different kind of day. In a local Walmart, the
floor manager notices a disheveled customer who
doesn't seem to quite fit in, wandering in the electronics department. The customer, one Robert J. Seacat. Seacat thinks no one is looking, and he begins pocketing small electronics and other items from the store. But what he doesn't realize
is that his every move is being caught on the
store's surveillance cameras. The floor manager quickly calls the police who arrive just a few minutes later. As the officers make their
way into the building, Seacat realizes the jig is up. He hastily ducks behind a display case and bolts for the exit. Luckily for Seacat, he
briefly evades the police and escapes from the Walmart property. But without a plan, he
just starts running. Of course the Lechs are blissfully unaware of Seacat, the botched robbery, and the harrowing chase unfolding on the other side of town. As they picture pieces of new furniture and other decorative items in their home, the Lech family happily continues discussing furniture options. As they finish shopping,
they're looking forward to taking all of their new furnishings to their home in Greenwood Village. But Seacat manages to jump into his beat up old pickup truck, and speeds away from Walmart. But he doesn't get very far. The old pickup, which has
never been very reliable, quickly stalls. (man screaming) Seacat abandons the vehicle and tries to evade police on foot, frantically scurrying
around the neighborhood. While looking for cover, he
comes upon the Lech's house where all is peaceful. Lech hurriedly approaches
the side of the house, which luckily for him,
is obscured by trees. So he picks up a rock,
takes one deep breath, and breaks the window. Little does he know, he has
just triggered a silent alarm. Back at the Walmart, one
of the witnesses tells the police that Seacat is armed, lending new gravity to the chase. More officers are immediately dispatched to deal with the potentially
violent criminal. The Lech's, meanwhile, are
still completely unaware of the break-in at home, and that their house
alarm has been triggered. Don't forget, their nine year
old son is at home alone. But as far as they know,
they have no reason to fear for his safety, so the adult family members
stop for a quick meal before they head home. But at approximately 2 p.m., the Greenwood Village Police respond to the alarm triggered at the Lech home. Seacat has unlawfully
entered in his efforts to flee police. Luckily, the Lech family's
boy hears the ruckus in the garage. Terrified, the child goes
straight to the front door and escapes from the would-be burglar. Fortunately, Seacat's so engrossed in trying to steal one of the family cars from the garage, that the
boy safely sneaks away. But the dogs the young son stayed home to watch are still in the backyard. After further investigation, the police learn that
this would-be shoplifter actually has a record,
and a history of violence. As an officer cautiously
pulls up to the Lech's house, and lazily exits his squad car, bullets from inside blast
through the garage door. (gun shots) One of the bullets pings the police car, missing the officer by inches. That changes everything. If Seacat is willing to
open fire on the police, what else is he capable of? The police begin to
realize just how dangerous this situation has become. At this point, the
Lechs still have no idea of the potentially deadly situation unraveling at their home,
but it won't be long before they find out
their planned renovation is going to be on a scale
they never imagined. The cops on the scene immediately report the high-risk situation, requesting back up, an
emergency response team, and a crisis negotiations team. Shortly after that call to dispatch, Commander Dustin Varney
arrives on the scene and takes command. The situation escalates fast, so Commander Varney finally
orders that Leo Lech be contacted with a warning to stay away. The news that his home is the scene of a potentially explosive stand off is a shock to Leo's life. It turns out that Seacat is wanted on several felony warrants
and is a known drug dealer. And now, he's in the Lech's family house, armed, and as far as the police know, maybe under the influence. Guns and drugs, a combination that makes the response team very nervous. Varney, being the man in charge, starts making decisions. To secure the scene, he
has the home surrounded and sets up tactical command posts. Then, Varney directs the
crisis negotiations team to take over and try
to reason with Seacat. A tall order given Seacat's instability and the acts of violence
he's already committed. Still, the negotiators have to try, tipping off a grueling
hours-long negotiation. And as the afternoon wanes, and Seacats speaks with negotiators, he keeps hinting that he
might surrender voluntarily. He keeps telling the cops things like, "I'll come out, but I just want more time. "I don't wanna hurt anyone," and "I'm almost ready to come out." But when Varney gives
Seacat one last chance to come out of the Lech's
home peacefully, he refuses. So the police turn off his cell phone and move on to the next,
much more drastic step, a few minutes after 7 p.m. Cold gas munitions are deployed through the first floor window in an effort to smoke Seacat out. But when Seacat remains inside, Varney surmises he must be
holed up on the second floor, which means he also has
the tactical advantage. If the police go in after him, they could get shot. Varney makes more quick decisions. Something has to be done, and fast. But all this time, the Lech's family dogs have been in the backyard. At the sound of the first
holes blown into the wall, one of the dogs escapes, while the other pooch is still
potentially in harms way. The Lechs notify police
that the dogs are there, but the cops assure the Lech family that their pets will be fine. Meanwhile, Varney has
to try something else to neutralize Seacat. Still hoping the burglar
will tell the police he'll surrender peacefully, Varney decides to send a
robot with a throw phone to open up lines of communication without allowing Seacat to
contact any third parties. Of course, after all the gas grenades, it's anybody's guess whether or not Seacat will be willing to cooperate. Getting the throw phone into the house in the first place is hard enough, but the robot has to enter
the house to get there. To do so, police decide to
literally blow the doors off the Lech house to make
way for the robot to get in. They use a BearCat armored
vehicle and explosives to create an entry point
for the tactical team and the robot, which they
send in with the phone. More than three hours later,
at approximately 10:40 p.m., the SWAT team enters the
residence on the first floor and attempt to reach the second floor, one calculated move at a time. But Seacat has other plans, and from the second
floor opens fire on them. The teams quickly pulls
back, exiting the home. Varney is losing patience
while the Lech family is being kept at a distance, unable to see the chaos
in their own house. Despite the continuous
ringing of the throw phone and announcements over the loud speaker, officers outside can hear
Seacat reloading his weapon. Four more hours crawl by, and Seacat never comes out of hiding, nor answers the phone. The exhausting night bleeds
in to the grim morning. At about 5 a.m., Varney
approves the launch of another exploding device. This time aimed at the
east side of the garage in an effort to limit Seacat's movements. The homeowners still have no clue about what's happening to their own house. Finally, at the end of their rope, the police shoot more gas
munitions through every window in the house to flush Seacat out. They blow up virtually
every door and every window. All the while, they continue
attempting to negotiate, but nothing works. Finally, Varney takes out his final steps. Measures that will seal the tragic fate of the Lech's family house. Varney orders the BearCat to open up holes in the back of the residence. Varney's exact instructions are "Take as much of the building as needed, "without making the roof fall in." Varney's plan has three goals. One: to locate Seacat within the home. Two: to prevent him from being able to ambush officers sent in after him. And three: to create gun ports so snipers could, if necessary, shoot into the residence from a distance. And so, the police remotely
control the BearCat, and begin bulldozing the house. Piece by piece, wall by wall, they start to demolish the walls, tear down the doors,
and open up sight-lines. The Lechs are about to get
that open-concept house they'd always wanted. With the destruction complete, Varney orders a tactical team to arrest Seacat by all means necessary. The SWAT team rams through
the shell of the house, runs up the stairs, and
bursts through a bedroom door to find Seacat with a
loaded Glock 9mm handgun, but they tackle him to the
ground and disarm him safely. Finally, the police take him into custody. Following his arrest, officers
located several baggies of heroin and methamphetamine. The police actions
throughout that fateful day are designed to preserve life, and in that respect, they're successful. No citizen, law enforcement officer, or Seacat himself, is
seriously injured or killed as a result of the incident. Oh, and the pups are okay. Shaken, dirty, but alive. As for the Lech house, well, that's a different story. By the end of the incident, the Lech house looks like it was bombed. Giant holes riddled the outside of the Lech house,
including the burst frames of nearly every window and doorway. The interior of the house
is a swamp of debris from the battering rams and explosives. In fact, inspectors
declared that the Lech home is uninhabitable, and a
danger to anyone who enters. However, after the shocking
incident concludes, the police contact John
Lech to let him know that he and his family
can return to their home to pick up some of their belongings. The officer also mentions that there was, and I quote, "some damage to the house." The Lechs later describe
the scene as a war zone. When the Lechs arrive to the disaster area that was once their lovely family home, their reaction is beyond distressed. Their hearts sink. The scene is so bad that there aren't any personal belongings to pick up. They've all been destroyed. And despite the fact the
police told the the family they could return to their property, when they try to enter the home, they are, unbelievably,
threatened with arrest. The city of Greenwood Village
has condemned the residence as completely uninhabitable, and too dangerous for entry. So now what? Where can they go? The Lechs aren't millionaires. They have one house, their most prized possession, which has barely been left standing. So the Lechs appeal to
the police for help, as they have no where to go, no clothes, no personal items, and no home to sleep in that night. In response, the police offer
the family exactly $5,000. According to the police, five
grand should cover everything, including their insurance deductible. But while the police are confident that the $5,000 will cover
a few weeks worth of needs for the adults, the boy, and
two dogs, who have nothing, need food, shelter, transportation, clothing and all the other normal items of daily activities, the
reality is much different. And although the city assists the Lechs with temporary living
expenses in a gesture of good faith, no further crisis aid or help finding new housing is offered. More over, the police
deny any wrong doing, liability, or responsibility
for the Lech's damages. The Lech home has to be demolished and rebuilt because it's
declared a total loss. Sadly, the house in torn down, and what's even worse for the Lechs, is that a precious heirloom ring, one that survived WWII in Italy, is never recovered from the house. And the young son has to
move to another school because the temporary housing they have is out of his district. Meanwhile, the poor dogs
are shaken to the core, in addition to being covered in tear gas and explosive residue. So the traumatized pups are
forced to undergo medical exams, deep cleaning, and a hair shaving. On the brighter side,
a dangerous criminal, Robert Seacat is in jail and
no longer a threat to society. He's convicted of nine counts of attempt to commit manslaughter
with a deadly weapon against a peace officer, two counts of attempt
to commit manslaughter with a deadly weapon, and
several other felonies. He's sentenced to decades in prison. Even so, the Lech family
suffers emotional pain, and a severe disruption to their lives as a result of the sudden and
disastrous loss of their home. The days and weeks that
follow are daunting and stressful, especially
for parents trying to provide a young child with physical and emotional security. Still, neither the police nor the village offers further support of any kind beyond the insufficient $5,000. Enraged by the entire incident and the damage that's
been done to their family, along with the pathetic
handling of the matter by police and the city
of Greenwood Village, the family decides to
hire a lawyer and sue. Mrs. Rachel Maxam and her team
of attorneys take the case. The city and police
department are promptly served with a summons and complaint, leading them to immediately
engage counsel of their own. The Police Chief, Commander Varney, and all of the other
police officers involved in the incident are named as defendants. Some of the proceedings begin. It's a contentious fight with
the tensions running high. The Lechs file a complaint
alleging the violation of the U.S. Constitution's Taking Clause. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government
to pay just compensation to property owners any time their land or other property is,
quote, taken by the state. In other words, their lawsuit claims that since the government
entity took their home away from them, it was a
matter of eminent domain, which requires the city
to pay compensation for the entire property loss. The city and the police, however, argue that there's a distinction between a regulatory taking, where the government restricts
your property owner's ability to use their land by
process of eminent domain, and the state's use of police power to protect the public. At trial, the Lechs lose
on summary judgment, which means that even
if the court assumes all of their facts to be true, it doesn't amount to a
recognized legal claim. Therefore, the case is dismissed summarily without a full trial. In response, the Lechs fight back and take the case all the way
up to the appellate court, the 10th Circuit, which hears the case
in the winter of 2018. Will the appellate judges
see the case differently than the trial judge? Let's take a listen to the legal arguments from both sides. (typewriter ticking) - [Female Judge] Good
afternoon, counselors. So I have here that this
case is before the court on the issue of whether the
defendant's complete destruction of the plaintiff's home and
property is legally actionable. Counselors, please state
your names for the record and confirm that you're in
agreement that the issue is just as I have stated. - [Rachel] Thank you, Justice. Rachel Maxam, for the
plaintiff appellants, and yes, that is the correct issue. - [Andrew] Andrew Nathan, on behalf of the defendants appellees, and we also agree with that
statement of the issue. - [Female Judge] Wonderful. Then, Ms. Maxam, please proceed. - [Rachel] Thank you. Simply put, the Lechs are
seeking deserved compensation for the loss of their entire home. The police destroyed their
house for no good reason. Yes, a felon must be captured, but not by blowing up
innocent citizen's homes. It's patently unjust. Thus, the defendants must
provide fair compensation to the Lech family. - [Andrew] May I give a brief response to counsel's opening submission? - [Judge] All right, but keep it short. - [Andrew] This case goes
beyond mere arguments to appeal to emotions. We have laws to consider, to uphold. In this case, the police and state needed their rightful
immunity from prosecution to be able to do the very
job of capturing a man who posed a danger to society. - [Male Judge Number One]
Well, then let's get on to the applicable law,
the written briefs focus on the Constitution's Fifth
Amendment's Takings Clause. So let's hear your oral arguments on that. Ms. Maxam? - [Rachel] Justices, we
submit that the trial court erred in its interpretation
of the Takings Clause. The doctrine of eminent domain for which the takings clause stands, applies to the Lech's case
because their home was, in effect, taken by a governmental entity without their consent. Thus, the defendants must provide just compensation to the Lechs. - [Male Judge Number One]
But the trial court found that eminent domain only applies when the government takes legal title and ownership of a private
citizen's real property. How was it mistaken on that finding? - [Rachel] Because the court
arbitrarily drew a hard line between the government's
power of eminent domain and a state's police power. But there was no statutory or case law to support such a distinction. - [Male Judge Number One] So tell us what you think is the law on the difference between
state's police power and the power of eminent domain, if you find any difference at all. - [Rachel] I submit that
the law permits application of logic and common sense, and that means the courts must look at the ultimate predicament
into which the Lechs were put in order to decide whether
the preposterous acts and massive destruction done
by the defendants are a taking. - [Female Judge] So are
you saying that the purpose of the taking is what makes
the Takings Clause apply, and not the definition of taking itself? - [Rachel] Exactly. Just as the U.S. Army could take over an entire neighborhood of homes because that spot is needed
for strategic missile placement in order to defend national security, the Lech's home was taken over as the place where the police needed to catch a dangerous criminal in the interest of local security. - [Male Judge Number One]
What do you have to say about that argument, Mr. Nathan? - [Andrew] May it please the court, I find it's wholly
unsupported by case law. Counsel conveniently leaves out the line of cases relied upon by the trial court, which clearly separate eminent
domain from police power. Counsel fails to provide any authority that stipulates the circumstances
of the taking itself are the controlling factor. We must focus on the
legal meaning of taking. - [Male Judge Number
Two] If that's the case, how should the court define taking? - [Andrew] Simply the
way it's defined by law and in layman's English. When something is removed
from one person by another, and when it's then retained
by the second person. Here, the state never
retained the property. They only used the Lech home temporarily for the public good. The property has been owned by the Lechs since the date of the event. - [Rachel] That's nonsense, your honors. We must remember that
this was the Lech's home, their residence, the place
which provided them shelter. And for a good 19 hours,
they were homeless. Homeless is homeless, whether
the property was transferred to the police as temporary
or permanent owners, or not. The Lechs were literally prevented from stepping foot back into the home because it was declared
unsafe and uninhabitable. If that's not the police taking, I don't know what is. - [Female Judge] Mr. Nathan,
how is this case not one in which the plaintiffs
lost use of their home, just like they would if its title were transferred away from them? - [Andrew] With all due respect, Justice, it doesn't matter. Why? Because this case involved action by the state's police power. It was not a federal matter
of national security, or any other power that could lead to a commandeering of a
private party's property. The police power comes with its own rules apart from the Takings Clause. - [Female Judge] Please explain
the main relevant difference for the case at bar. Police power controls the use of property by the owner for the public
good, authorizing its regulation and destruction without compensation. On the other hand, eminent
domain takes property for the public use, and
compensation is given for the property taken,
damaged, or destroyed. - [Male Judge Number One] Ms.
Maxam, is Mr. Nathan correct that takings under police power do not require compensation to the owner? - [Rachel] Yes, Justice. But I submit that counsel
is misleading the court. What I mean to say is that this case is not about the difference
between eminent domain and the police power. They are different. In this case, the police
destroyed the house to protect the public
from a dangerous person, benefiting the public. The circumstances that
led to the destruction of my client's home fall
under the Takings Clause, which means that they're
entitled to compensation for its loss. - [Male Judge Number One] Please, clarify whether you have any legal
support for that position, because so far, we've only heard your and Mr. Nathan's personal
definitions of taking. - [Rachel] I'm citing a
federal court case from 2017, in which the court
clarifies a distinction, which is controlling here. That court found that when property is damaged as a result of
exercise of police power, it is not a taking for the public use because the property has, and this is the key part, the property has not been altered. Thus, if the property is altered, it logically follows that the damage falls under the Takings Clause. - [Female Judge] Thank you, Ms. Maxam. Do you, Mr. Nathan, have
any cases you'd like to cite to dispute that argument? - [Andrew] Well, all of
the cases which I cited in my written brief to the
court undermine that argument. But to be specific
about the case Ms. Maxam is referring to, that court
took the words not been altered to mean its purpose had not been altered. To put it another way,
had not been altered meant not been changed in purpose to something other than a
private residential home. For example, had not been altered to become a blood drive facility, or missile command station. - [Female Judge] Any rebuttal
or closing, Ms. Maxam? You're the appellant. - [Rachel] Thank you, Justice. I'd request that the court
read the reference case on its own and see for
itself what the 2017 court meant by the words. In general though, this
is a case where the police used my client's home to
conduct police business. Thus, it was taken out of
my client's possession, completely taken away by
its total destruction, its purpose altered, and thus having been used in such a way, it by definition falls
under the Takings Clause. And this court should reverse
the trial courts dismissal. Thank you for your time. - [Female Judge] All right,
thank you, Ms. Maxam. Court is adjourned. (typewriting clicking) - So what are your thoughts? If you were the judge,
what would you decide? Should the police have to compensate the home owner for the total destruction of the property resulting
from the police work that necessitated the damage? Pause this video, and let me know how you think this should turn out. I'll be right here. (typewriter clicking) Well, the Appellate Court
decided in favor of the police. Thus, it decided that there
is not a right to compensation when the damage occurs as a result of the state's police power. And that the demise of the Lech's home did not amount to a taking. The doctrine of eminent
domain did not apply. Insurance paid the Lechs $350,000, less than half of what it cost
to actually repair the house, and paid nothing for
the Lech's legal fees. But the local government complained that the Lechs replaced their house in a way that was much nicer than it was before the police blew it up. So take that as you will. And the Lechs have asked the entire 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the panel decision. If the 10th Circuit rules against them, the Lechs might take
their case all the way up to U.S. Supreme Court. That remains to be seen. Do you think its worth
it for them to try again? Hopefully the Lechs will get justice because that's what this
channel's all about, but it can be hard to get
he word out on YouTube when dealing with sensitive subjects. Because the only thing scarier than getting your house
blown up by the police, is getting demonetized. Which is why my creative
friends and I teamed up to build our own platform
where creators don't need to worry about demonetization
or the dreaded algorithm. It's called Nebula, and we're thrilled to be partnering with Curiosity Stream. Nebula is a place where creators can do what they do best, create. It's a place where we can both
house our content ad-free, and also experiment with original content and new series that probably
wouldn't work on YouTube. In fact, if you like this
episode of "The Case Of," you can find an extended version that I actually can't show on YouTube. It's Legal Eagle, now
with 10% more explosions. Nebula features a lot of YouTube's top educational-ish creators, like Thomas Frank, Patrick Willems, Real Engineering, TierZoo,
and tons of others. We also get to collaborate
in ways that wouldn't work on YouTube, like Tom Scott's
amazing game show "Money," where he pits a bunch of famous
YouTubers against each other in psychological experiments
where they can work together, or profit individually. It is so, so good. So what does this have to
do with Curiosity Stream? Well, as the go-to source
for the best documentaries on the internet, they
love educational content and educational creators. And we worked out a deal
where if you sign up for Curiosity Stream with
the link in the description, not only will you get
a one month free trial for Curiosity Stream, you'll also get a Nebula
subscription for free. And to be clear, that Nebula
subscription is not a trial. It's free for as long as you
are a Curiosity Stream member. And for a limited time, Curiosity Stream is offering their documentary distancing discount, which gives you 40% off
of their annual plans and gift cards, so that you
can stay in and stay curious. That's $12.00 a year, for both Curiosity Stream and Nebula. I mean, since we've
gotta stay inside anyway, we might as well be soothed by the voice of David Attenborough narrating tales about tiny hummingbirds, or join astronaut Chris
Hadfield on a road trip through the universe. Or watch Tom Scott torture
your favorite YouTubers. So if you click on the
link in the description, you'll get both Curiosity Stream and Nebula for 40% off. Or you can go straight to
curiositystream.com/legaleagle. Its a great way to support this channel and educational content directly for just $12.00 per year. Just click on the link in the description, or again, go to
curiositystream.com/legaleagle. Clicking on the link in the description really helps out this channel. So how would you have decided the case of the "House The Police Blew Up"? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out this playlist over here with all of my other true crime videos. So just click on this video, and I'll see you in court.
Very recent case too.
(This, incidentally, is only the tip of the iceberg of legal immunity for police misconduct.)
ACAB