The overall issue of liability for damages to private property when police SWAT teams launch attacks and weapons barrages that destroy homes remains pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.
That’s the Martin v. United States case brought by a family who was refused compensation after a team from the FBI wrongly raided their home and left behind a long list of damages.
But in one similar case there appears to be a resolution for a Texas woman.
It is the Institute for Justice that confirms a federal judge has ruled that under the state constitution, Vicki Baker is entitled to be compensated for the nearly $60,000 in damages done to her home.
“It took five years, but Vicki is finally going to be made whole,” explained IJ Lawyer Jeffrey Redfern. “She’s fortunate that Texas has such strong protections for private property rights, but people in much of the rest of the country aren’t so lucky. We will continue fighting to secure the same rights for all Americans under the U.S. Constitution, nationwide.”
The ruling from the federal judge was that Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 in damages done by a SWAT team in McKinney, Texas, to her home.
Plus interest.
Police destroyed the structure in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive, the report said.
Then refused to compensate her for damages.
The scenario developed in July 2020 when a fugitive hid out in Baker’s house while she was not home.
“When Vicki’s daughter informed the police that the fugitive was in Vicki’s home, they arrived on the scene and a standoff ensued. Vicki’s fence was knocked down, doors were smashed and windows were shattered with tear gas canisters. Vicki’s insurance company refused to pay for the damage caused by the government, and the city of McKinney refused to pay as well,” the IJ confirmed.
The report noted the decision was based on the Texas Constitution, after the U.S. Supreme Court, which is considering another similar disaster, declined to accept Baker’s case for review.
The IJ said, “The ruling likely cements 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.”
“I’ve just learned that my battle with the city of McKinney, is coming to an end,” Baker said in a statement released by the lawyers. “Judge Mazzant has, once again, ruled that I am due just compensation under the Texas Constitution.”
The IJ confirmed it is fighting dissimilar disputes in California, Indiana and North Carolina now, cases that could be impacted by a Supreme Court ruling in the Martin case.
The IJ argued that while getting dangerous criminals off the streets is a legitimate government function, authorities cannot just walk away when “police destroy innocent people’s property in the process.”
The report noted that Baker’s home was under contract to sell when the police destroyed it, and the incident caused the buyer to decline to follow through on the purchase.
Further, Baker has explained, “I lost so many family heirlooms, classic books, and clothing that were damaged by the tear gas. It was devastating to be told there was no way to receive compensation for all the destruction I came home to.”
Her insurance did not cover “acts of the government,” and the government simply refused to recognize its liability for the SWAT officers’ actions.
A jury had decided that the city was liable, a decision overturned at the appellate level. But a significant number of the court’s judges voted to reopen the case then.
The jury verdict followed the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant III that the SWAT team’s destruction of the home was a “taking” under the U.S. Constitution that required the city to pay just compensation.
Mazzant rejected the city of McKinney’s argument that police action should be categorically exempt from the general requirement that government pay for property it destroys, holding that the argument “rests on an untenable analysis of police power and eminent domain.”
