A cancer survivor in Texas, Vicki Baker, who fought a legal battle to receive compensation after a SWAT team destroyed her home while chasing an armed fugitive, has faced another setback. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the use of armored vehicles, explosives, and toxic gas by the police during the July 2020 standoff in Baker’s home was necessary, and therefore she should not be compensated for the damage. However, lawyers from the Institute for Justice, representing Baker, are seeking a re-hearing and are prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
The incident occurred when Baker’s adult daughter was at home and a handyman, who had kidnapped a teenage girl, stormed in. Baker’s daughter called the police while the armed man stayed inside. Despite eventually releasing the teenager, the suspect refused to surrender and threatened to engage in a shootout with the police due to his terminal cancer. Consequently, a SWAT team was deployed, causing significant damage to Baker’s property.
The SWAT team broke Baker’s fence, fired tear gas canisters through the walls, windows, and roof, and used an explosive device to blow off the garage door. The police explained that their strategy was to confuse their target, referring to it as “shock and awe.” Unfortunately, the suspect had already taken his own life before the police entered the house.
As a result of the assault, most of Baker’s personal belongings were ruined due to tear gas exposure. Additionally, her daughter’s Chihuahua suffered severe health issues and had to be euthanized after being left blind and deaf. Baker’s insurance policy did not cover damage caused by the government, leading her to file a property damage claim with the city. However, the city refused to pay, citing qualified immunity.
With assistance from the Institute for Justice, Baker sued the city, arguing that her home was seized under the Takings Clause, similar to eminent domain cases. Her lawyers contended that while the city had the right to seize the property, Baker should be fairly compensated. During a pre-trial conference, the city offered to pay the damages but refused to change its policy regarding compensation for future cases. As a result, Baker’s team declined the settlement.
A federal judge ruled in favor of Baker and a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. However, the city appealed, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling. The court argued that the Takings Clause does not require compensation for damaged property when it was objectively necessary to prevent imminent harm during an active emergency. The city’s lawyers did not claim this necessity in court, preventing Baker’s lawyers from arguing against it.
The Institute for Justice plans to request a re-hearing and is prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. The city of McKinney, pleased with the ruling, stated that it upholds a legal precedent protecting taxpayers from paying for property damages caused by lawful police actions. They also claimed that they had offered Baker the full amount of her damages, which she rejected.
Despite the setback, Baker’s lawyers are confident that she will eventually receive compensation, as she won her initial court case based on constitutional grounds. The appeals court’s reversal only affects her Fifth Amendment claim. If the court changes its decision and supports Baker, it would create a conflicting ruling with the 10th Circuit in Colorado, which previously determined that local police were not obligated to compensate a man whose house was destroyed during a gun battle.
In conclusion, Vicki Baker, a cancer survivor in Texas, continues to fight for compensation after a SWAT team destroyed her home while chasing a fugitive. Despite winning her initial court case, a federal appeals court ruled against her, stating that the damage caused by the police was necessary. However, Baker’s legal team remains determined to seek justice and will pursue further legal avenues if needed.
