This Innocent Woman Is on the Hook for Thousands After a SWAT Team Destroyed Her Home

An error-prone investigation in search of a fugitive led police to Amy Hadley's house.

In June of 2022, law enforcement arrived at a modest home on East Calvert Street in South Bend, Indiana. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades into the house, launched flash-bangs through the front door, smashed windows, destroyed the security cameras, punched holes in the walls, ripped a panel and fan from the bathroom wall and ceiling, ransacked and tossed furniture, snatched curtains down, and broke a mirror and various storage containers. The tear gas bombs left openings in the walls, floors, and ceiling. Shattered glass lay strewn across the interior, and a litany of personal belongings—from clothing, beds, and electronics to childhood drawings and family photos—were ruined.

Police had their sights set on a man named John Parnell Thomas, then a fugitive, who is now behind bars. But law enforcement didn't apprehend Thomas at the residence on East Calvert, as he did not own the home, did not have any relationship with its owners, and had never been there.

The actual owner, Amy Hadley, was not a suspect in law enforcement's investigation. She was, in some sense, punished anyway, as the government left her to pick up the tab after officers dismantled and wrecked much of her home.

A faulty investigation led police to Hadley's house. An officer with St. Joseph County attempted to locate Thomas via Facebook, concluding erroneously that he was accessing social media from the IP address tied to the Hadley residence.

He was not.

On June 10, 2022, upon surrounding the house, police ordered those inside to exit. Hadley's son, Noah—who was 15 years old at the time—was the only one home; he came out with his hands up as instructed. Police immediately conceded on the body camera footage that he was not who they were looking for. They placed him in double handcuffs, put him in a caged squad car, and took him to the police station anyway.

A neighbor called Hadley to let her know something dire appeared to be happening outside her home, prompting her to return to the residence. She told law enforcement that Thomas was not inside and that her security cameras, which would be destroyed soon after, would have alerted her if a stranger had forced his way in. A South Bend SWAT team, along with backup from the St. Joseph Police Department, proceeded forthwith. Over 30 officers were dispatched to Hadley's home.

The result forced Hadley and her son to sleep in her car for several nights as the toxic fumes lingered, while her daughter, Kayla, stayed elsewhere until the space was safe to live in again.

Hadley, who is employed as a medical assistant, does not dispute that police had a valid warrant and a right to search her property. What she does dispute, however, is that the government can leave her to shoulder the financial burden of their mistake. After contacting the South Bend Police Department, the St. Joseph County Police Department, and St. Joseph County, she received a mixture of demurrals and radio silence, according to a lawsuit recently filed in the St. Joseph County Circuit Court.

A year and a half post-raid, those agencies have paid her nothing. Her home insurance helped her in part but declined to pay the full amount, which totaled at least $16,000 in damages, per her suit, leaving her thousands of dollars in the hole.

It's not the first time the government has destroyed an innocent person's property and left them to pick up the pieces, both literally and figuratively. Hadley's experience once again requires that we answer the following: When law enforcement wrecks someone's house or business in pursuit of public safety, who should bear the cost?

Carlos Pena, a small business owner in Southern California, recently filed a suit that probes the same question, although his attorneys say the answer is clear. In August 2022, about two months after the raid on Hadley's house, a Los Angeles SWAT team threw over 30 tear gas canisters into Pena's print shop while attempting to catch a fugitive who had forcefully ejected Pena and barricaded himself inside. His inventory and most of his equipment were ruined, costing him about $60,000 in damages and thousands in revenue from lost clients. After building his business, NoHo Printing & Graphics, for over three decades, he now operates at a much-constrained capacity out of his garage.

Like many policies, Pena's insurance told him they were not responsible for damage caused by the government. But Los Angeles has, at different times, ignored him or told him they are not liable, according to his lawsuit, which was filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Whether or not such victims are entitled to relief comes down to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which promises that people are entitled to "just compensation" when their property is usurped, or in this case destroyed, for public use. But various jurisdictions have been able to dance around that thanks to some federal jurisprudence which has held that actions taken under "police powers" are exempt from the pledge in the Takings Clause. "Apprehending a dangerous fugitive is in the public interest, and 'in all fairness and justice,' the cost of apprehending such fugitives should be borne by the public as a whole," says Hadley's suit, "not by an unlucky and innocent property owner whose property is put to a public use to serve the public's interest."

Another plaintiff, Vicki Baker, sued the city of McKinney, Texas, in 2021 after a local SWAT team caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage to her home and rendered her daughter's dog deaf and blind. Again, a fugitive had barricaded himself inside; again, Baker was not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing; again, her insurance declined to pay. When she sought assistance from the government, they told her they weren't liable and that she didn't meet the definition of a "victim." "I've lost everything," Baker, in her 70s and struggling with cancer, told me shortly after filing her suit.

Following a lengthy court battle, a federal judge allowed her to proceed before a jury, characterizing the law that threatened to block her suit as "untenable." That jury awarded her about $60,000 in June 2022. And then in October of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that, somewhat begrudgingly, ruling that current precedent foreclosed relief on the basis that police acted by "necessity during an active emergency."

"For future victims, [this] would mean that you're probably out of luck under the federal Constitution from the 5th Circuit, unless this case gets reversed," Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney for the Institute for Justice which represents Baker, told me in October. "It's a pretty big deal." Fortunately for Baker, he added, the jury's award should survive under the Texas Constitution, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution—although she only got that judgment after government stonewalling and a protracted court battle, which not everyone has the time and resources to finish.

As for Hadley, it remains unclear if she will receive compensation after the government acted on its error-prone investigation and left her home a shell of what it once was. But one thing is almost certain: There will be more innocent people like her in the future whose lives are upended by the state, only to be told that's just their tough luck.