How long should it take an innocent person to get confirmation that they will be compensated after the government destroys their home? Should, of course, is subjective. Some such victims will never get that confirmation.
For Vicki Baker, it came today from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, almost six years after her house in McKinney, Texas, was destroyed by a SWAT team in pursuit of a fugitive who had barricaded himself inside.
The scene that followed was chaotic. As I wrote in 2021:
Prior to the SWAT showdown, Baker’s daughter, Deanna Cook, gave officers a key to the home, as well as a garage door opener and the back gate code. Agents took a different route. They smashed six windows. Instead of using the code, they maneuvered a BearCat armored vehicle through her fencing. Instead of using the clicker, they detonated explosives to blow off the garage entryway. And instead of using the key, they drove right on through her front door.
Baker’s insurance declined to cover the damage, as it was caused by the government—a common stipulation. But the government countered that it was not responsible either, as she did not meet its definition of a victim. “I’ve lost everything,” Baker told me over five years ago. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.”
The legal argument the government relied on is a surprisingly common one. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment promises “just compensation” when private property is usurped for public use. Community safety is, after all, a public benefit, which is typically shouldered not by the individual but by the whole. To evade paying out such claims, however, some municipalities have said that constitutional pledge is not absolute, particularly as it relates to property that is destroyed in the exercise of police powers.
Many innocent property owners have failed to overcome that in court. Baker, meanwhile, was able to rack up a rare win—if you can call it that?—after completing what can be accurately described as a federal courts–themed game of human pinball.
What exactly did Baker’s game—er, legal experience—look like? Her home was left in ruins in July 2020. After the government refused to pay her, she filed suit in March 2021. The city tried to stop her from suing; a federal judge declined to dismiss. In 2022, a jury awarded her about $60,000 in what seemed like a major victory. Yet in 2023, the 5th Circuit reversed, ruling her claim was doomed because police acted by “necessity during an active emergency.” In 2024, the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas affirmed she could recover damages—$60,000 plus interest—under the Texas Constitution as opposed to the U.S. Constitution. The government naturally appealed, which brings us to 2026.
So Baker, who is in her 80s, will finally get her payout. She is more fortunate in that way than several others. Yet one wonders how much money local officials spent fighting this lawsuit instead of paying the judgment that was handed down almost four years ago.
