Lawsuit accuses Rochester police of property damage during search

Listen to this article

A lawsuit against the city of Rochester and Rochester Police Department officers accuses the officers of extensive damage to a home during execution of a search warrant.

Plaintiff Eric Van Caeseele filed the complaint in state Supreme Court on May 1. Van Caeseele, who is represented by attorney Ralph G. Alloco, is seeking compensatory damages, plus attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Van Caeseele lives elsewhere, but he owned a two-family house at 730-732 Thurston Road. On Feb. 6, 2025, Monroe County Court Judge Michael Dollinger issued a search warrant authorizing members of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) to search the premises at 730 Thurston Road.

Van Caeseele was not the target of the criminal investigation that led to the issuance of the search warrant, according to the complaint.

The search warrant was issued based on the affidavit of RPD Investigator Erin Rogers, who was assigned to the Greater Rochester Narcotics Enforcement Team. Rogers alleged that there was reasonable cause to believe that drugs, including cocaine, fentanyl, and related paraphernalia, would be found at the premises.

The search warrant authorized the search of the premises described as 730 Thurston Road, specifically the northern unit of the two-family residence, including all storage areas, garage, attic, and curtilage. The search warrant authorized execution between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.

On Feb. 7, 2025, at 6 a.m., members of the Rochester Police Department executed the search warrant at the property.

Van Caeseele “was not the target of the criminal investigation that led to the issuance of the search warrant,” according to the complaint.

During the execution of the search warrant, the police “caused extensive and unnecessary damage to the property,” including broken doors, holes in walls, damage to trim and molding, a broken garage door, and damage to a trailer located in the driveway on the premises, according to the complaint.

“The damage caused by the individual defendants during the execution of the search warrant was excessive, unnecessary, and disproportionate to the objectives of the search,” according to the complaint.

The police “used unreasonable force and methods in executing the search warrant, causing damage to the property far beyond what was reasonably necessary to conduct the authorized search,” the suit claims.

“When the individual defendants planned and executed the search warrant at the property, they effectively took positive control of the property, knowingly creating an unpredictable and potentially dangerous condition at a particular premises,” the complaint states.

“By taking positive control of the property during the execution of the search warrant, defendants assumed a special duty of care to plaintiff, as the owner of the property, that exceeded the general duty owed to the public at large,” the lawsuit claims.

The complaint accuses the city and the officers of negligence and violation of Van Caeseele’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches.

“Even where a search warrant is facially valid, the Fourth Amendment requires that the manner of its execution be reasonable. Excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful,” according to the lawsuit.

“The individual defendants violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment by executing the search warrant in an objectively unreasonable manner, causing excessive and unnecessary destruction of plaintiff’s property,” the complaint states.

“Upon information and belief, the city of Rochester failed to implement adequate policies, procedures, or training to ensure that officers executing search warrants would do so in a manner that minimized unnecessary property damage,” according to the complaint.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035