Justices: Maybe The Takings Clause Doesn’t Cover Destroying An Innocent Person’s Home To Arrest A Suspect

This may not mean much in the grand scheme of things but it’s good to see these objections on the record. It’s incremental, but in these times, every increment helps, especially when the Supreme Court seems actively disinterested in discussing cases in which government officials might be found to be in the wrong.

Cert has been denied to Vicki Baker, a McKinney, Texas resident whose house was basically razed to the ground by police officers looking to arrest a kidnapping suspect. Without a doubt, kidnapping is a serious crime and this incident involved a 15-year-old. But the events that unfolded following a high-speed chase turned Vicki Baker’s home into the PD’s own private Afghanistan as they attempted to smoke out the suspect using a steady stream of escalation.

The kidnapping suspect was known to Baker and her daughter, Deanna Cook. When suspect Wesley Little showed up at her house (a residence known to him because he had worked there as a handyman), Cook recognized him as well as the person he had kidnapped. Making the first inadvertent mistake, Cook told Baker she had to go to the store. Once outside, she called the cops.

The police showed up and talked with Cook. They set up a perimeter and, shortly thereafter, Little released his kidnapping victim. Then the real assault began. This is from the Supreme Court’s denial [PDF] of Baker’s petition — one she engaged in after the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court sided with the police and their destruction of her home.

To resolve the standoff and protect the surrounding community, the police tried to draw Little out by launching dozens of tear gas grenades into the home. When that did not work, the officers detonated explosives to break down the front and garage doors and used a tank-like vehicle to bulldoze the home’s backyard fence. By the time the officers gained entry, Little had taken his own life.

It seems so minimal when reduced to a single, small paragraph. But read those words again. “Dozens” of tear gas grenades were fired into the home. Explosives were used to destroy multiple doors. A goddamn bulldozer was used to destroy the backyard fence. And, in the end, the suspect had killed himself, despite the police making every effort to destroy the house he decided to enter.

Twice, a federal court said this was a plausible violation of the Takings Clause, which limits the government’s ability to seize/destroy property to serve its own ends. Following a December 2021 ruling that the Takings Clause’s limitations applied to this case, at least in terms of Texas state law, a jury decided seven months later, the city owed Baker more than $60,000 in damages.

Baker has sufficiently pleaded a takings claim under the Texas Constitution. The actions taken by the Department officers damaged Baker’s home—that much appears undisputed. Even if the government did not intend to damage Baker’s property to apprehend Little, the City was substantially certain such damage would result. It is unreasonable for the City to suggest the Department officers stormed Baker’s house, broke the windows, knocked down the garage door, rammed down the backyard fence with a tank-like vehicle, and fired dozens of explosive tear gas cannisters into the home without a degree of certainty that such actions would cause damage to the property. 

Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court disagreed, at least in terms of the Takings Clause under the US Constitution. It sided with the state and its cops, finding that this clause doesn’t provide protections to homeowners who find themselves the victims of cops determined to get their man by any means necessary.

We conclude that, as a matter of history and precedent, the Takings Clause does not require compensation for damaged or destroyed property when it was objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy that property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons. 

Baker’s appeal has now been addressed (sort of…) by the US Supreme Court. The majority of justices have decided they don’t care enough about this sort of thing to hear the case and issue an opinion. They’ve simply decided to deny certification and let the chips of Baker’s exploded doors fall where they may.

Fortunately, though, this refusal to address an issue that isn’t simply going to go away hasn’t passed without comment. Two Supreme Court justices — Sotomayor and Gorsuch — have decided to express their opinions [PDF], even as they concur with the nation’s top court’s disinterest in this case. (via FourthAmendment.com)

First, they detail the extent of the damage, which was far more than the destruction of doors and bulldozing of fences. The interior of the house — including another inhabitant who wasn’t the kidnapper the cops wanted to flush out — took the brunt of the attack.

The explosions left Baker’s dog permanently blind and deaf. The toxic gas that permeated the House required the services of a HAZMAT remediation team. Appliances and fabrics were irreparable. Ceiling fans, plumbing, floors (hard surfaces as well as carpet), and bricks needed to be replaced—in addition to the windows, blinds, fence, front door, and garage door. Essentially all of the personal property in the House was destroyed, including an antique doll collection left to Baker by her mother.

If this had been a car, the insurance agency would have had it totaled. But when it comes to houses, it’s far more difficult and expensive to work these things out. Worse, most insurance agencies won’t cover incidents like these, figuring it’s the government’s obligation to cover the cost of damages or (even more shittily) claim this is evidence of illegal activities on the premises, thus instantly negating any attempts to obtain an settlement from the homeowner’s insurance provider.

After making this point, Sotomayor and Gorsuch move on to the larger point: the Takings Clause doesn’t cover this sort of “taking.”

The Court’s denial of certiorari expresses no view on the merits of the decision below. I write separately to emphasize that petitioner raises a serious question: whether the Takings Clause permits the government to destroy private property without paying just compensation, as long as the government had no choice but to do so. Had McKinney razed Baker’s home to build a public park, Baker undoubtedly would be entitled to compensation. Here, the McKinney police destroyed Baker’s home for a different public benefit: to protect local residents and themselves from an armed and dangerous individual. Under the Fifth Circuit’s decision, Baker alone must bear the cost of that public benefit.

The courts continue to pretend every similar case doesn’t give them anything to declare a “bright line” that would set some sort of standard the government might need to comply with. Every court at the appellate level has been willing to kick the can down the road. And, unfortunately, when the can hits the end of the road — the US Supreme Court — the top court just kicks the can back, restarting a cycle of non-resolution that gives governments the power to destroy people’s homes without attaching any sort of responsibility or liability to these actions.

Unfortunately, this mild objection does little more than cite possible circuit splits and suggests the ultimate resolution may arrive an untold number of years from now as more cases (and I’m directly quoting the justices here) “percolate in lower courts.”

I’m not happy with this passing of the buck. But it does serve one purpose: the suggestion from members of the top court in the land that the Takings Clause doesn’t cover destruction of private property by law enforcement. But the suggestion is mild at best. The intellectually honest answer is that, of course, localities are responsible for property damage caused by cops. The flipside of power is responsibility. And if cops can’t figure out how to get someone out of an innocent person’s home without destroying the residence, localities should keep cutting checks until they do.