WASHINGTON − When an armed fugitive held a 15-year-old girl inside a house in McKinney, Texas, in 2000, police used explosives, toxic-gas grenades and armed vehicles to resolve the situation.
The girl was released. The fugitive killed only himself. But the house, which belonged to an innocent woman, was severely damaged.
Vicki Baker, the owner, sued the city for compensation and a jury sided with her.
But a panel of judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Despite their sympathy for Baker, the judges said, the city didn’t have to compensate her because she acknowledged that the damage was unavoidable.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review that decision.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in a statement joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the case raises an “important and complex question.” But it’s one that would benefit from more review by lower courts before the Supreme Court weighs in, she wrote.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest firm representing Baker, said the court needed to weigh in because the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property without sufficient compensation.
“As a society, we pay for police salaries, training, equipment, and the cost of running a criminal justice system,” the institute’s lawyers told the Supreme Court. “We should also pay for the damage that the police must sometimes inflict on innocent property owners.”
The city argued that the appeals court had relied on more than 200 years of prior decisions that constitutional protections for private property don’t apply if the police acted responsibly during an emergency.
Damage caused by “lawful, reasonable, and necessary efforts to enforce criminal laws,” the city’s lawyers wrote, “is beyond the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.”
Sotomayor said past decisions by the Supreme Court aren’t binding on this case because the destruction of Baker’s home was necessary, but not inevitable.
“Whether the inevitable-destruction cases should extend to this distinct context remains an open question,” she wrote.
Jul 1, 2024; Washington, DC, USA; The U.S. Supreme Court building is visible after the court issued their opinions on July 1, 2024 in Washington. Mandatory Credit: Josh Morgan-USA TODAY
Baker was not living in her house when the fugitive, who had previously done handyman work at the property, knocked on the door.
Baker’s adult daughter, who was preparing the house for sale, let the fugitive and his hostage in, then contacted her mother, who called the police.
A SWAT team used explosives to take down the garage door. Armed vehicles knocked down the front door and fence. Tear gas grenades launched through windows and walls saturated the interior.
Baker’s insurance covered only some of the damage, that which was directly attributable to the fugitive.
After Baker sued the city to cover the rest, it offered to settle before the case went to trial. But Baker wanted to continue, according to filings, to prevent a similar situation from happening to someone else.
Her lawyers said the case is part of an accelerating trend in which courts have said that if the government is taking property for a good reason, such as promoting health and safety, there’s no compensation.
“These erroneous decisions have serious consequences for everyday Americans,” they wrote. “Few people can afford to easily bounce back from the financial devastation that a SWAT raid inevitably leaves behind. To make matters worse, few insurance policies cover this kind of damage.”
The appeals court said it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether “fairness and justice trump historical precedent.”
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court won’t review if SWAT teams must pay for property damage
