This Innocent Woman's House Was Destroyed by a SWAT Team. A Jury Says She's Owed $60,000.
Such victims are often told they have no right to sue.

When Vicki Baker cleared out her home in McKinney, Texas, in 2020, she filled two 40-foot dumpsters with her belongings. It wasn't the way she'd pictured emptying the house as she prepared to begin retirement in Montana. But there was little else to be done with her tear-gas stained items after a SWAT team careened through her fence, detonated explosives to blow her garage door off its hinges, smashed several windows, and drove a BearCat armored vehicle through her front door to apprehend a fugitive that had barricaded himself inside.
A federal jury last week decided that Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 for the trouble. It's both a controversial and surprising decision. Normally, people like Baker get nothing.
In July 2020, Wesley Little arrived at Baker's house with a 15-year-old girl he'd kidnapped. Little had previously worked for Baker as a handyman, though she had fired him about a year and a half earlier after her daughter, Deanna Cook, expressed that something may be awry. Cook answered Little at the door that day; having seen him on recent news reports, she left the premises and called the police.
The girl was released unharmed. But Little refused to exit the home, so a SWAT team arrived and began to tear the house down around him in a process known as "shock and awe."
They then kindly left Baker with the bill. "I've lost everything," she told me in March 2021. "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." Those bills include treatment for stage 3 breast cancer.
Yet the only thing perhaps more absurd than a jury having to force the government's hand in recompensing her is that Baker almost did not have the privilege to bring her case before one. Federal courts in similar cases have ruled that the government can usurp "police powers" to destroy your property and avoid having to pay it back under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which is supposed to provide a remedy for such circumstances.
After the ordeal, Baker sought that remedy through her home insurance, which stipulated that they are not on the hook if it is the government's fault. And though the government didn't deny being at fault, per se, they did deny that Baker was a victim, sending her on her way with a ravaged home, thousands of dollars in destroyed personal possessions, and a dog that went deaf and blind from the chaos that July day.
In November of last year, Baker's luck began to turn. A federal judge denied the city of McKinney's motion to dismiss her case. In April, that same jurist, Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, described the interpretation of the law barring Baker from suing as "untenable." And last week, the jury handed down their ruling. The city may appeal, which will delay any payout.
In coming to his decision, Mazzant invoked another unfortunate case: that of the Lech family, who had their $580,000 home ruined by a SWAT team as they pursued an unrelated shoplifter who broke in. Greenwood Village, Colorado, did more for them than McKinney would do for Baker, forking over all of $5,000. A federal court ruled that the family could not sue, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case.
"Even though a number of federal courts have gone the wrong way on this issue, they've done so with very cursory analysis," says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm shepherding Baker's case. He says this new ruling is different and should "be the one that everyone is looking at" as similar situations continue to pop up.
It does not set a precedent, however. "In this case, we put the city claims agent on the stand," notes Redfern, "and she said, 'Yep, I denied the claim, and I deny every claim like this, and if this happened tomorrow I would deny it again.'" Unfortunately for people like Vicki Baker, this will continue to be a familiar story.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>>claims agent
minon of darkness.
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four (05-dky) weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link.......... http://payout11.tk
Don't claims agents always decline every claim?
Took me some effort, here's the actual ruling from the court that denied the city's motion for dismissal:
https://casetext.com/case/baker-v-city-of-mckinney
Still reading it.
From reading it it’s clear she had very good attorneys.
Yeah, they thread that needle.
I think I don't know enough to know why this doesn't create a precedent within this federal jurisdiction at least. I see Binion follow that up with this quote:
"In this case, we put the city claims agent on the stand," notes Redfern, "and she said, 'Yep, I denied the claim, and I deny every claim like this, and if this happened tomorrow I would deny it again.'"
But why is that relevant to the question of the decision setting precedent in this jurisdiction?
It does not set a precedent, however. "In this case, we put the city claims agent on the stand," notes Redfern, "and she said, 'Yep, I denied the claim, and I deny every claim like this, and if this happened tomorrow I would deny it again.'" Unfortunately for people like Vicki Baker, this will continue to be a familiar story.
I'm too lazy to read the case, but what's wrong with the city's insurance rep denying the claim? You're the insurance company, you write a policy for the city. The city hires a bunch of half wit apes that go around throwing C4 into people's homes and taking flamethrowers to the livingrooms. If I were the insurance agent who wrote that coverage, you can bet that kind of behavior wouldn't be covered. Claim: DENIED.
To be clear, what that means is if the judge rules against the city, and the insurance denies the claim, the city is directly on the hook for any payouts. Someone's pay is getting garnished. Or a whole bunch of someones.
I only mean the claims adjuster's statements about the procedure he was operating under has nothing to do with whether or not the federal judge created precedent with his ruling.
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-50) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home. Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
All it means is that no district court ruling is precedential. Any other judge of the district is free to ignore this case if they want to. If it goes up on appeal and gets affirmed, THAT would be precedential, and every court in the Fifth Circuit has to follow it.
Yes, the taxpayers'.
You don't think this comes out of the salaries or retirement of city employees?
Individuals will never pay. And that's a problem on its own. Certainly I'd like to read the insurance coverage, but it's likely a phone-book sized document, mostly exclusions.
Woo nelly. This is an ugly case. Reading through it, I think it's more reasonable than not that they were allowed to bring the case. That definitely feels to me like something where the government needs to account for this type of takings as a part of its standard functioning.
Her Insurance not covering it though really seems bad. Fuck those guys.
Her Insurance covering it would provide endless cover for Government Almighty goons to go berserk... More than they do already, that is... From now till Kingdom Come! Woooo-hoooo, SOMEONE ELSE will pay for our destructo-party!!! Let's just go berserk some MORE now!!!
(If the entire state of Nebraska is destroyed during our destructo-party, then faceless insurance agents will pay for it ALL, so let's have a GOOD time NOW!!! Call in some nuclear strikes by the USAF, whose bomber pilots really NEED some practice anyway!)
Mckinney is another sleepy Texas farm community that has turned into a big city as suburbanization makes its unrelenting progress from Dallas/Fort Worth to the Red River and Texas/Oklahoma border.
It wasn't a farm community since before I was a child, and I'm no spring chicken these days. It's been a meaningful suburb of Dallas for 40 years.
So... like.. what... after appeals. $75000.00 (my estimate) in legal fees to get $60000.00. So a "win" then? What an absurd dicotomy to the tragedy in Uvalde. Fucking heartbreaking. Bring in the apc for one possible... destroy an innocents house and fight (for years) to not pay her damages. Then stand around for an hour while while classroom full of children are being gunned down. I'd like to hope the people in her city said Fuck you pay her. As a a taxpayer I'd rather we fixed her house than spend $100000.00 in court costs to not make that innocent person whole again. Remember the taxpayer is paying for the taxpayers lawyers to fuck this woman over... so yea we pay thrice for this shit...
Imagine if the police were privatized and a security firm were providing the services. They could be sued for damages they cause to innocent people, but they'd likely have insurance for that specific purpose. As a result, the insurance company will create guidelines about how to handle different situations, so they don't have to pay out claims for this kind of government abuse of citizens.
That's a libertarian solution. And something some politicians should be proposing. Even government police could be forced to pay for insurance out of their budgets (yeah, the taxpayer pays for it).
The attorneys were pro bono, but in any event prevailing party fees are available for federal constitutional claims.
I must have missed the part about "police powers" in the Constitution. Good on this judge.
You did. See Amendment X.
I am of two minds about this. Hypothetical here - let's say the country is being invaded by Russia, China, or whatever. Enemy troops are holed up in your house, US forces bomb them and destroy the house. Should the US government be on the hook for every building destroyed in wartime while defending the country?
If not, then what is the difference here, other than scale? This was a kidnapper of a young girl, after all.
In the case of the Lech family where the police were pursuing a shoplifter, that's supposedly not a threat to anyone's life so to me that is a different situation entirely.
In modern times they might be. But unfortunately, this is an extreme analogy. This is a civilian force, in a civilian neighborhood during peacetime. Using your analogy, what if the police response to this fugitive being held up in Ms. Baker's home been to carpet bomb the entire neighborhood from 50,000 feet?
All they were doing was trying to dislodge a fugitive, they're not responsible for the damages. At some point, reasonable force and scope of that force should come into play when determining liability here.
Yeah. I think I could make the argument that even if the police are acting rationally, if there is a takings during government action then they should be held liable. I can definitely see that being taken to an extreme in the other direction, but I would lean towards individuals on this more and I think the costs of policing can and should include the cost of the damages they inflict on folks and their property.
Greats
Wasn't the "takings" the bad guy confiscating the use of the house? Still, reminds of the police chasing a stolen car; all you get back is rubble.
"Reasonable" is the key word.
If the man involved was a serial killer with a double digit death toll armed with who knows what, then such destructive actions would be justified. I think they should still be on the hook for damages, but it would be justified.
An unarmed kidnapper who had released his victim, or worse, a petty thief, does not warrant this kind of behavior.
He was a kidnapper. I agree this was a situation that the police had to act. An innocent person's home was destroyed. This was not a war zone. I am suggesting that the people who fund the police who destroyed her house to catch the creep. Would be better off fixing her house than keeping her in litigation for years...
The kidnapped girl had been let go.
It was just him, the poor dog, and an otherwise empty house. There is no urgency in that situation at all.
If the Russkies are holed up in wartime, they are enemy combatants. These are the sorts of people who are shooting to kill, possibly have proper military weapons, and if this were to happen the homeowner may just be fucked. But this is an entirely different scenario, in an entirely different construct. Even more, we're talking about Federal troops having done so, not local police. They aren't even close to comparable.
Only a Reason commenter would try to compare all out war with a simple barricaded suspect with no hostages.
Scale matters, and so does context. In a war where we're being invaded, we likely don't have the money to pay those claims anyway, and we're going through a crisis which implicates the very existence of the nation itself. Here we're talking about a single criminal and a single house. I would argue that it would be better to let the criminal go than to inflict more damage than the government is willing to pay for.
If police were private, they'd be on the hook for the damages they do to third parties, and they'd likely have insurance to cover it or self-insure. That standard should also apply to police departments.
War is outside any operation of the free market, so you cannot analyze it that way. As a practical matter, in case of war, governments do pay for rebuilding, and they try to recover damages through reparations. Government even helps out in case of natural disasters.
It's pretty obvious that if the police need to destroy someone's house to apprehend a criminal, then compensation should be paid, by those who pay the police, as part of the cost of policing. The alternative, untenable as it clearly is, is to make clear it's a crime for police to do any such thing, and let perps get away with crimes to protect property.
Jesus, ENOUGH about the January 6 rioters, they get what they deserve!
Prediction: SCOTUS overturns lawsuit 6-3. Thomas' opinion citing qualified immunity was joined by 4 justices with Alito concurring with his opinion to "f*ck the 4th amendment."
Thomas hates QI (which doesn't apply here anyways), but he's never above concluding that no real remedy needs exist so long as a hypothetical one does. In this case, he'd probably conclude that the police are not liable because it's actually the suspects fault, and no precedent exists to examine whether or not the police response was even reasonable.
I believe that technically, the criminal is liable for all of the damages. However, his insurance definitely won't pay, and criminals tend to not have 6-digit bank accounts.
Why doesn't qualified immunity apply?
...and a dog that went deaf and blind...
I truly believe they harm pets on purpose. Look sideways at a K9 and you might get the shit kicked out of you. They love their animal partners. When they casually kill pets they are intentionally causing emotional harm. They are intentionally provoking a reaction that excuses even more violence on their part.
The public as a whole should bear the cost of catching the crook. Even if smashing up the house was justified, if the owner was innocent she shouldn't have to bear the cost on her own.
If the kidnapper had holed up (say) in a fire station, and they'd smashed up the fire station to take down the fugitive, the taxpayers would be on the hook for it. But if the criminal chooses to hide in a private house, it's suddenly not the taxpayers' problem.
Exactly. This is actually classically a takings, because she's deprived of her property in the interests of the common good (catching the criminal). Courts have just twisted the purpose of everything.