The case involved the more than $275,000 in damage caused to a store as a result of police use of tear gas to apprehend a suspected felon who had entered the store. An expert witness testified that the police officers used excessive tear gas and could have produced the same result with half the quantity. The majority on the California Supreme Court declined to hold that compensation was due to Customer under the California law regarding takings of property. It asserted many reasons, including the applicability of the law only to government actions authorized by the eminent domain, the emergency exception to the California takings clause, and the greater appropriateness of other methods of damage recovery. One judge's concurring opinion asserted that the government must put the property to some use for compensation to be available. In contrast, the dissenters argued that just compensation applies to the government's purposeful physical destruction of private property in furtherance of law enforcement activities. The analysis of the decision indicates that leaving the plaintiff with no remedy is patently unjust and must be avoided. A case-by-case analysis of these problems could lead to greater uniformity among the jurisdictions in answering takings questions; using the guidelines suggested in this paper would produce this uniformity. Footnotes