In a Texas city, a woman who had previously won a court case to receive nearly $60,000 in compensation for damages to her home, caused by a SWAT team's actions while dealing with an armed fugitive holding a 15-year-old girl hostage, faced a legal setback.
This occurred when a federal appeals court reversed the earlier ruling.
The incident took place in July 2020 when officers from the police force in McKinney, a Dallas suburb, took extensive measures to address the emergency situation. They employed an armored vehicle to level a fence, broke down doors, used explosives, and even threw tear-gas grenades through the windows of Vicki Baker's home. This home was up for sale at the time.
The result of this raid was catastrophic, with her residence left in ruins, dissuading a prospective homebuyer from proceeding with the purchase. Unfortunately, the city refused to compensate Baker for the damages.
Subsequently, she filed a lawsuit in federal court in March 2021, alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without fair compensation.
Surprisingly, she emerged victorious in this legal battle as a judge ruled that the city's actions constituted a "taking," and the damage was both "intentional and foreseeable," leading to the city being obligated to provide "just compensation."
However, the city decided to challenge this decision, leading to a recent ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling concluded that the Takings Clause does not mandate compensation for damaged property if such damage was "objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy that property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons."
Despite the sympathetic view towards Ms. Baker, the court ruled against her, stating that the officers' actions were necessary to prevent harm to the hostage child and others in her residential community.
Baker's attorney, Jeffrey Redfern from the Institute for Justice, expressed his intention to file a petition for a rehearing of the case. He argued that the court decided the case on an argument that was not presented in the initial proceedings.
While this decision affects her under the U.S. Constitution, Baker also prevailed under the Texas Constitution. As a result, the city of McKinney will likely have to compensate her in one way or another.
Furthermore, a media representative for the city of McKinney expressed their satisfaction with the ruling, asserting that it upholds legal precedent protecting taxpayers from property damage claims stemming from lawful police actions.
This legal saga began in July 2020 when Baker's daughter, who was at home at the time, alerted authorities about a fugitive holding a runaway girl hostage in her house. The subsequent police operation, marked by the use of an armored vehicle and various tactics, ultimately led to the fugitive's demise.
The operation was deemed a success, but it left Baker's dog permanently impaired, requiring extensive remediation efforts and property replacements, including an antique doll collection left to her by her mother.
Comments
Post a Comment