TX - Viki Baker sues city after her home is destroyed by SWAT team chasing man holding 15-year old girl hostage - Oct 14, 2023

[Ebon]

Appeals court rejects damages for woman whose home was 'destroyed' by SWAT team

A woman fighting in court to get a city to pay her $59,657 for damages to her home caused by a SWAT team hunting an armed fugitive holding a 15-year-old girl hostage has been dealt a legal setback.

lawandcrime.com

A woman who won a court battle to get a Texas city to pay her nearly $60,000 for damages to her home caused by a SWAT team hunting an armed fugitive holding a 15-year-old girl hostage has been dealt a legal setback as a federal appeals court reversed the ruling.

In a decision on Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said police did what was necessary to resolve the emergency in July 2020 when officers leveled a fence with an armored vehicle, busted down doors, used explosives and threw tear-gas grenades through windows of Vicki Baker’s home that was up for sale in McKinney, a Dallas suburb.

The raid left her home in shambles, prompting a prospective homebuyer to walk away, and the city refused to pay Baker.

So she filed a lawsuit in March 2021 in federal court, alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

And she won. A judge ruled that the city’s destruction of Baker’s home was a “taking” and that the damage was “intentional and foreseeable,” so the city must pay “just compensation. ”

But the city appealed.

In a ruling on Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the clause does not require compensation for damaged property when it was “objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy that property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons.”

 

[DeDee]

Ms Baker's home was For Sale so it may have been unoccupied at the time of the destruction. SWAT felt so at ease to have "busted down doors, used explosives and threw tear-gas grenades through windows of Vicki Baker’s home..." What if a family of six had been cowering inside? No way would SWAT have tossed live grenades into her home. They took advantage of the situation.

How did the armed fugitive and the 15yo gain entry into the home? SWAT couldn't go that way, too?

Her lawyers need to use a fine tooth to go over those clauses being referenced. Will a homeowner's insurance policy cover her losses?

 

[TruthWillBeJustice]

I feel the city has an obligation to repair the house. Just like with bystanders getting hurt. They have insurance to cover this.

 

[PrairieWind]

I feel the city has an obligation to repair the house. Just like with bystanders getting hurt. They have insurance to cover this.

I see these cases crop up now and then. Good government would just pay these people to fix the damage.

 

[MAHBOOBOO]

Did she not have home insurance? Why should our tax dollars pay for fixing what insurance should?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Did she not have home insurance? Why should our tax dollars pay for fixing what insurance should?

Because our tax dollars pay the liability for LE.

 

[LadyL]

not just $60,000 damage but also this:

The police operation was deemed successful, and the damage was necessary to resolve the emergency, but the explosions left Baker’s dog permanently blind and deaf.

that's so upsetting and no compensation can bring back his eyesight and hearing

 

[LordMo]

ridiculous for anyone to think that a private homeowner should have to pay for damage done by the people who are sworn to protect and serve her, especially during a climate where LE are getting more and more funding for weapons and gadgets.

Biting my tongue a bit, I'll just say: Right on, @LadyL !

 

[LadyL]

ridiculous for anyone to think that a private homeowner should have to pay for damage done by the people who are sworn to protect and serve her, especially during a climate where LE are getting more and more funding for weapons and gadgets.

Biting my tongue a bit, I'll just say: Right on, @LadyL !

it's the same here in Canada at least in my locale where a murderer's wife sued for damages to her house done in a search (nothing on this level) and she won

as a taxpayer I don't mind paying for the damages as it's a necessary evil but I sure wouldn't have had the cojones to sue if my husband were a murderer

 

[PrairieWind]

Did she not have home insurance? Why should our tax dollars pay for fixing what insurance should?

Why should her insurance company have to pay for damages caused by someone else that has plenty of money.

 

[Tbone144]

In an ideal world, than man that took the hostage would be paying for it, it’s the result of his deeds. City should pay and then get reimbursed from the felon. Make him work in prison and garnish his wages. He can get out when it’s paid off.

 

[PrairieWind]

In an ideal world, than man that took the hostage would be paying for it, it’s the result of his deeds. City should pay and then get reimbursed from the felon. Make him work in prison and garnish his wages. He can get out when it’s paid off.

I think reimbursement is case by case, but I do tend to agree with you. It really is the fault of the criminal, who of course doesn't usually have any money. But I think a better option is for the city to pay for the damage (their officers inflicted the damage) and then have the city/county/state seek restitution as part of a criminal prosecution.