Property and Privacy Rights
Property and Privacy Rights are a category that deserves a subsite of
its own. In recent decades there has been a steady erosion of such rights,
despite a few gains, which trend toward the reduction of estates in land into
tenancies at will, seizure and forfeiture of property without conviction of a
crime, and intrusion into private spaces.
Organizations and Activists
Administrative and Trial Level
Federal Appeal Courts
Freeman v. Dallas, 97-10907,
5th Cir. — After winning damages against City of Dallas in trial for
demolition of a building deemed a nuisance, on appeal it was decided that
search warrant not needed, but reasonableness of of the action leaves open an
appeal to the Supreme Court under the takings clause.
U.S. Supreme Court
Camara v. Municipal
Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) — Building inspector must obtain
warrant to inspect building if owner does not consent to it.
Hafer v. Melo, 502
U.S. 21 (1991) — State officers may be held personally liable for damages
based upon actions taken in their official capacities.
Soldal v. Cook County,
506 U.S. 56 (1992) — State or local officials who stand by or protect an
unlawful eviction or seizure are liable for damages under 42 USC 1983.
Bennis v. Michigan,
517 U.S. 1163 (1996) — Property used in a crime may be forfeited even
though partly or wholly owned by an innocent third party.
Palazzolo v. Rhode
Island, Docket 99-2047 (Decided Jun. 28, 2001) — A state land-use
regulation may present standing to a subsequent owner for compensation under
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.