Can Cities Be Forced 2 Pay 4 Police Damage?

When police destroyed woman’s home while arresting a kidnapper, “immunity” law gave city a pass. Will a fed judge’s unprecedented order to pay up based on 5th Amendment’s eminent domain clause overturn those precedents?

The back story: Vicki Baker was a retired 78-yr-old cancer survivor who had moved out of her Texas home & living in Montana. The home was up for sale & had a purchaser contracting to buy it … but then all hell broke loose. As Fox relates: “On July 25, while Baker was in Montana, a [heavily armed] handyman she had hired 2 yrs previously took refuge in her home after kidnapping a teen girl … Police swarmed the home … [& negotiated the release of the girl] … but [the handyman] refused to surrender. So a SWAT team unleashed a barrage of tear gas from all directions.” The “shock & awe” effort caused nearly $60K damage. Citing long-established law on its immunity from financial responsibility, the city refused to pay. So did the insurance company since its typical policy excluded “damage caused by government.”

While some may say it’s a legal Hail Mary, Baker’s attorney, Jeffrey Redfern of The Institute for Justice ignored the “immunity” angle & creatively argued the police had effectively seized his client’s property under the “Takings Clause” just as if they, as city agents, had seized someone’s home to build a road; hence, the city owed Baker “just compensation.” The trial judge & jury bought the argument but the city appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The city will cite the 10th Circuit’s case saying “a local police dept. did not have to compensate a man whose home was destroyed during a gun battle with a suspect.” If Baker wins the appeal, the “split” between those 2 Circuits often means a final call will be made by the Supreme Crt. Hold on to your homes!

Davd Soul