Jury Says Texas City Must Pay Woman $60k After Cops Destroyed Her Home To Apprehend A Suspect

from the could-have-saved-taxpayers-cash-by-paying-her-two-years-ago dept

Bucking a trend set by two separate Appeals Courts (Ninth and Tenth), a federal court in Texas has said it is actually a violation of rights when cops destroy an innocent person’s home to effect an arrest. What’s more, a jury has backed up that decision with actual compensation. (h/t The Honest Courtesan)

Today, a federal jury ruled that Vicki Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 in damages after a SWAT team destroyed her McKinney, Texas, home while pursuing a fleeing fugitive in July 2020. The ruling is a victory for Vicki, who joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in March 2021, after the city refused to pay for the damage that had been caused. 

“My priority has always been to make sure that cities like McKinney cannot treat other people the way I’ve been treated,” Vicki said. “I expect today’s victory to send a message to governments across the country that they have to pay for what they break.” 

Vicki Baker’s home suffered more than $50,000 in damage after the McKinney PD detonated explosives to open a garage entryway, tossed tear gas grenades into her house, ran over her fence with an armored vehicle, and tore her front door off its hinges. All of this to effect an arrest of a fugitive wanted for kidnapping who had decided to hide out in his former employer’s house until the heat died down.

The officers did all of this despite being given a garage door opener, a code to the back gate, and a key to the house.

Late last year, this court hinted (but did not make a final call) this sort of wanton destruction was a rights violation.

While the Court acknowledges that governmental bodies are not “liable under the Just Compensation Clause to property owners every time policemen break down the doors of buildings to foil burglars thought to be inside[,]” Nat’l Bd. of Young Men’s Christian Ass’ns v United States, 395 U.S. 85, 92 (1969) (emphasis added), Baker has alleged damage to her private property—and the City’s refusal to compensate for such damage—that plausibly amounts to a Fifth Amendment violation.

It also suggested it might be a violation of the state constitution as well, especially since the damage caused was hardly “incidental” or “unforeseen.”

Even if the government did not intend to damage Baker’s property to apprehend Little, the City was substantially certain such damage would result. It is unreasonable for the City to suggest the Department officers stormed Baker’s house, broke the windows, knocked down the garage door, rammed down the backyard fence with a tank-like vehicle, and fired dozens of explosive tear gas cannisters into the home without a degree of certainty that such actions would cause damage to the property.

A little more than a month ago, the court handed down a ruling [PDF] that confirmed its earlier speculation: this senseless destruction — one the city refused to pay for — violated Baker’s rights. And the victim of this unconstitutional taking must be compensated.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Takings Clause prevents the government from “‘forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’” Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 123 (quoting Armstrong, 364 U.S. at 49). The Supreme Court has also articulated a per se rule that applies here: in the case of physical appropriations by the government, the government must pay for what it takes. Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 2071. The Court is not persuaded to deviate from physical takings jurisprudence “as old as the Republic,” Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U. S. at 322, especially considering the decisions the City relies on cherry-picks dicta from Bennis to produce a rule that undermines decades of Supreme Court Takings precedent. Thus, the Court does not find that the total destruction of private property pursuant to the government’s exercise of its police power is categorically non-compensable under the Fifth Amendment.

As for the “cherry-picked dicta” the city cited to justify its ongoing refusal to pay for any of the damage its police department had caused, the court offers this rejoinder:

More importantly, were this rule applied here, Baker’s constitutional protections under the Fifth Amendment would disappear. It cannot be the case that public good could be done at the cost of the individual. When the Court reads the decisions in Lech, Johnson, and Amerisource, the Court is left with one question: “What is more terrifying: the fact that the government would have to pay a just amount for the property it destroys pursuant to its police powers, or that it would be exempt from paying a dime, regardless of the motivations behind its actions?” Emilio R. Longoria, Lech’s Mess, 11 WAKE FOREST J. L. & POL’Y 297, 306 (2021).

The city also cited Lech, the Tenth Circuit’s abysmal decision that pretty much said no public entity should ever have to pay for damage to private property caused by law enforcement officers. But, as the court points out, this means nothing in this case. First off, the Tenth Circuit is an entirely different jurisdiction. (Texas courts are in the Fifth Circuit.) Second, the decision wasn’t precedential. (And, third, it obviously disagrees with the Lech decision, finding it to run contrary to Supreme Court precedent.)

Finally, after two years of litigating, the city will have to pay what it probably just should have paid Baker two years (and thousands in legal fees) ago. The check hasn’t been cut yet, and there’s a good chance the city will appeal this decision, but it does at least show the general public (the jurors in this case) feel the government should have to pay for the private property it destroys.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Jury Says Texas City Must Pay Woman $60k After Cops Destroyed Her Home To Apprehend A Suspect”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
19 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

Between this story and “civil forfeiture” laws you might wonder why the GOP – those stalwart self-appointed defenders of the constitution – haven’t been screaming until the sky falls about the 4th amendment.

Uncharitable minds might suspect their love for that document only extends to the bits which they think lets them whine about getting tossed off private premises for being assholes and cling to military-looking varmint guns in the honest belief that’ll stave off the librul pedo-cannibals coming for their women and offspring on behalf of the black and jewish satanist overlords running the NWO.

Considering shit like described in the OP, however…just at what point was it that US Law Enforcement saw fit to start behaving like russian soldiers invading a city-scape under the flimsy pretext of “apprehending criminals”?

Bobvious says:

Re: Re: why the GOP haven't been screaming about the 4th amendment

Because like many Americans, they dream of reinstating the old British system of government, IN AMERICA. The one that many Americans spilled blood to fight against. The same British system of government that gave rise to the US Constitution (with Amendments) and the desire that people could live their lives without being subject to the government jackboots and restrictions on speech.

That you are not subject to a king/queen and their whim. That you shouldn’t have to live in an authoritarian dictatorship (by any name). Unfortunately, Trumpism is the new rise of the Born-to-rule, Upper Class twit and the enforcement of the master-slave system.

It’s almost like these people never took or understood a Civics class

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

The officers did all of this despite being given a garage door opener, a code to the back gate, and a key to the house.

Which does rather beg the question of why any damages needed to be paid for. Perhaps the next time the police are given the tools to effect a peacable entry to private property, they might actually use them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Yeah, but they had all these cool toys just lying around! What’s the point of having tanks and tear gas if you’re just going to peacefully enter the property and apprehend the suspect non-violently, as if you’re in a first world country that doesn’t need to give its cops these toys?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

“Perhaps the next time the police are given the tools to effect a peacable entry to private property, they might actually use them.”

…because, courtesy of police unions and SCOTUS, most PD’s are utterly immune to any consequences of barbaric stupidity and ineptitude?

I fucking guarantee that if this shit happens in almost any other nation in the OECD every responsible officer, from the chief on down, would be facing an inquest, the sack, and possible jail time.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re:

*I fucking **guarantee* that if this shit happens in almost any other nation in the OECD every responsible officer, from the chief on down, would be facing an inquest, the sack, and possible jail time.*

Inquests are for dead people only in the UK, but there would certainly be an investigation, with each offender’s punishment depending on their level of culpability.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Well, I can see several problems. For one thing, you have a single asterisk opener, then a double asterisk opener, then a single asterisk closer, and, finally, another single asterisk closer. Let me put that in perspective by replacing single asterisks with parentheses and double asterisks with square brackets:

(I fucking [guarantee) that if this shit happens in almost any other nation in the OECD every responsible officer, from the chief on down, would be facing an inquest, the sack, and possible jail time.)

That is analogous to what the markdown parser sees, and since it can’t make sense of it (for obvious reasons), it just doesn’t do anything with it. I’m guessing that you meant to put a second asterisk after the word “guarantee”, but the parser isn’t a mind-reader. This isn’t a failure of markdown. This is simply a case of “garbage in, garbage out”.

Also, for block quotes, what you’re supposed to do is put a > and a space at the start of each paragraph that makes up the quote, not simply italicize the whole thing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'It's not our property, why would we care?'

When the Court reads the decisions in Lech, Johnson, and Amerisource, the Court is left with one question: “What is more terrifying: the fact that the government would have to pay a just amount for the property it destroys pursuant to its police powers, or that it would be exempt from paying a dime, regardless of the motivations behind its actions?

That depends entirely upon the point of view.

From the perspective of a member of the public who might find their property trashed if not outright destroyed by government employees simply because they could and/or they got a little ‘excited’ in the moment the idea that they, not the government, would be on the hook for all of that is or at least should be pretty horrifying.

On the other hand from the perspective of a government employee/agency who strongly believes that personal consequences are for other people to deal with and the public should always be footing the bill the idea that the courts might even consider that they shoulder the blame for their own actions is likely quite the terrifying thought, as once you go down the road of personal responsibility applying to them to who knows what sort of madness might arise?

Why, people might start thinking that government agencies/employees shouldn’t just be able to offload legal costs and fines onto the taxpayers and instead the agency/employee should have to personally pay it, something that simply will not do, as such it’s much better to nip the heinous idea of personal responsibility applying to them too in the bud before it can sprout and grow.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »