Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co.
479 N.W.2d 38 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The destruction of an innocent third party’s private property by police in the course of apprehending a suspect constitutes a compensable taking for public use under the Minnesota Constitution. The doctrine of public necessity does not absolve the government of its constitutional obligation to provide just compensation.
Facts:
- Minneapolis police were pursuing two felony suspects following an attempted narcotics sale.
- One suspect, after exchanging gunfire with police, fled and hid in a house owned by Harriet G. Wegner.
- Wegner's granddaughter, who was in the house, escaped and informed the police of the suspect's location.
- Police surrounded the home and, after a standoff of several hours, decided to use force to expel the suspect.
- Police fired at least 25 rounds of tear gas and threw three concussion grenades into Wegner's house.
- These actions caused extensive damage to the property, including broken windows, dented walls, and chemical residue throughout the home.
- Following the assault, police entered the home and apprehended the suspect.
Procedural Posture:
- Harriet G. Wegner sued the City of Minneapolis in district court (trial court), alleging her property was subjected to a constitutional taking.
- The City of Minneapolis filed a motion for summary judgment on the taking claim.
- The district court granted the City's motion, holding that the police action was a valid exercise of police power and not subject to eminent domain limitations.
- Wegner appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, reasoning that although a 'taking' occurred, it was non-compensable under the doctrine of public necessity.
- Wegner appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota (state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the destruction of an innocent third party's private property by police in the course of apprehending a felony suspect constitute a compensable 'taking' for public use under Article I, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Tomljanovich, Justice.
Yes. When police damage an innocent third party’s property for a public use, such as apprehending a dangerous suspect, it constitutes a compensable taking under the state constitution. The court reasoned that labeling the police action an exercise of 'police power' does not negate the constitutional requirement for just compensation. The apprehension of a dangerous felon is a 'public use' because it benefits the entire community. Citing the Texas Supreme Court case Steele v. City of Houston, the court held that the core principle of the takings clause is to prevent the government from forcing a single individual to bear a burden that, in fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole. The court rejected the applicability of the public necessity doctrine as a defense against compensation, stating that once a taking for public use is found, compensation is required by law. The financial cost of public safety should be distributed across the community rather than falling solely on an innocent, unlucky property owner.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the government's eminent domain obligations under the state constitution are not suspended during police operations, even when those operations are necessary for public safety. It prioritizes the constitutional right to just compensation over the common law defense of public necessity in cases of property damage by law enforcement. The ruling prevents the government from externalizing the costs of its law enforcement activities onto innocent citizens, reinforcing the principle that public burdens should be publicly financed. This precedent significantly impacts municipal liability, requiring cities to budget for potential property damage incurred during SWAT team operations and similar law enforcement actions.
Unlock the full brief for Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co.