Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A SWAT Team Destroyed an Innocent Woman's House. The Supreme Court Won't Hear Her Case.
Reason ^ | 12.23.2024 | Billy Binion

Posted on 12/24/2024 1:53:34 PM PST by nickcarraway

Whether or not the government is required under the 5th Amendment to pay such victims will remain an open question.

The Supreme Court last month declined to hear a case from an elderly woman whose house was destroyed by a SWAT team, leaving open the question of whether or not innocent people are constitutionally entitled to compensation when law enforcement lays waste to their property in pursuit of public safety.

In July 2020, while chasing a fugitive, police arrived at Vicki Baker's home in McKinney, Texas. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades inside, used explosives to break the front and garage doors, and drove a tank through her backyard fence, although Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook, had supplied them with a key to the home, a garage door opener, and the back gate code.

The suspect, Wesley Little, had previously worked for Baker as a handyman and barricaded himself inside her home while on the run from police. He had kidnapped a teenage girl, whom he released after the cops arrived. But Little himself refused to exit, prompting law enforcement to ravage the house. (He ultimately killed himself.)

Baker, who was in Montana when her house was destroyed, never contested that police acted in the best interest of the community when it sought to extract Little from her home. She took issue, however, with the subsequent response from the government, which refused to compensate her for the more than $50,000 in damages. Her homeowners insurance likewise declined to pay, as many policies explicitly do not cover damage caused by the government.

"I've lost everything," she told me in 2021. "I've lost my chance to sell my house. I've lost my chance to retire without fear of how I'm going to make my regular bills." Baker, who was undergoing treatment for stage 3 breast cancer when we spoke, had been preparing to retire with her husband in Montana. After the house was ruined, a buyer predictably withdrew. The government said she did not qualify as a "victim."

She is not the only person with such a story. At the core of the case and those like hers is whether or not the Constitution legally obligates the government to repay people who are not suspected of criminal wrongdoing but whose property is nevertheless destroyed by police in an attempt to protect the community. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises that private property cannot be taken for public use "without just compensation," though some lower courts have ruled that actions taken by police in stories like these operate under an exception to that rule.

Baker's case has slogged through the courts for years. A federal judge rejected the city's attempt to have her lawsuit dismissed, describing the interpretation of the 5th Amendment that would prevent her from suing as "untenable," and in 2022 a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that judgment last year, ruling there was a "necessity" exception to the Takings Clause that foreclosed relief under federal law.

Some previous decisions suggest that such an exception may exist, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a statement, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concerning the Court's denial of certiorari. In Bowditch v. Boston (1879), for example, the high court said that the government did not have to pay a building owner after firefighters destroyed his structure in order to stop a fire from spreading. Yet the rulings on the books are not really analogous to Baker's "because the destruction of her property was necessary, but not inevitable," Sotomayor said. "Whether any such exception exists (and how the Takings Clause applies when the government destroys property pursuant to its police power) is an important and complex question that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this Court's intervention."

In 2020, the justices declined to hear a similar case concerning a Colorado family who had to demolish their home and take out a $390,000 loan after a SWAT team blew up the house while seeking to apprehend a fugitive.

So for now, other victims will continue to meet a similar ending. In 2022, police ravaged Carlos Pena's California printing business and equipment after a fugitive barricaded himself inside; that same year, Amy Hadley's home in Indiana was ruined after a botched police investigation led them to her house in search of a suspect who had never been there. The government left them with nothing.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 5thamendment; banglist; donutwatch; government; police; scotus; supremecourt; swat; takingsclause; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 12/24/2024 1:53:34 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

And this is why people go the Killdozer route.


2 posted on 12/24/2024 1:57:29 PM PST by Rural_Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Government: The ultimate mafia. “Whatcha gonna do about it?”


3 posted on 12/24/2024 2:02:16 PM PST by vpintheak (Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Try the eminent domain route.

Seems to have worked at least once.

https://youtu.be/FSXAggq5ozo?si=5MvR3QIQh4h0nmqU


4 posted on 12/24/2024 2:03:19 PM PST by cableguymn (They don't want peace they want skeletons )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Wait. Just realized that is this case. Other courts didn’t like the judgement I see


5 posted on 12/24/2024 2:04:55 PM PST by cableguymn (They don't want peace they want skeletons )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This is simply wrong. There was no wrongdoing on her part nor on the police’s part but there was a victim here. The state should compensate her for her damages. That would be the just outcome and one which I’m willing to bet the overwhelming majority of people would agree with.


6 posted on 12/24/2024 2:04:57 PM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

So wrong.


7 posted on 12/24/2024 2:05:39 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Judges don't live in the world they judge. Same for politicians.
8 posted on 12/24/2024 2:06:02 PM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Is there in-case-my-government-blows-up-my-house insurance?


9 posted on 12/24/2024 2:06:36 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This is criminal.


10 posted on 12/24/2024 2:07:07 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

When the government destroys your property in pursuit of a public good—policing in this case—innocent citizens should be compensated for their losses.


11 posted on 12/24/2024 2:09:04 PM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

She’s lucky as it could have been worse. The SWAT team could have barged into her home with no criminals there at all with the wrong address and shot her while in bed.


12 posted on 12/24/2024 2:10:22 PM PST by redfreedom (May God save us from what the Democrats do in the name of good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This type of abuse....the King can do no wrong...is anathema to our Republic.

These peoples’ property was taken for a government purpose by force without their consent......

Justice demands they be made whole.

This and civil forfeiture is utter balderdash that needs to be ended.


13 posted on 12/24/2024 2:14:42 PM PST by Lowell1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I think this stinks, but it is a state-level policy that is at issue. The good people of Texas are certainly free to elect representatives to enact a law providing for compensation in these circumstances.

This is kind of on Texas.

14 posted on 12/24/2024 2:15:55 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Government is the greediest, most corrupt and murderous force on Earth. It is not even debatable.

Governments murdered 262,000,000 of their own citizens in the 20th century alone.


15 posted on 12/24/2024 2:21:44 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Does this not include infanticide?


16 posted on 12/24/2024 2:23:36 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If this was a police pursuit and the homeowner or any other buildings, parked cars, property damaged, had nothing to do with it then the damage should fall on whatever taxpayers that the police work for, it was all part of the community’s law enforcement process, a group thing, damages are all part of the arrest.


17 posted on 12/24/2024 2:30:36 PM PST by ansel12 ((NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

And some people wonder why I believe Judges and Cops should be Swatted routinely with No Recourse.


18 posted on 12/24/2024 2:32:29 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

So go destroy their lair. At a certain stage in life, after the kids are out and successful, your obligations are met, your health may be negotiable, get up real close and personal and let loose. It’s your civic duty if justice is denied.


19 posted on 12/24/2024 2:33:24 PM PST by blackdog ((Z28.310) Be careful what you say. Your refrigerator may be listening & reporting you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Get the names of the personnel on the SWAT team and their supervisor who authorized the raid and report them as debtors to the three credit agencies against the damage done to your house. Names, addresses, job positions, etc. Put a strike mark on their credit.


20 posted on 12/24/2024 2:36:14 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson