A HOMEOWNER has been left fighting to get her savings back after a SWAT team destroyed her home during a standoff with a fugitive.
Vicki Baker, originally from McKinney, Texas, was over 1,800 miles away in Montana when her home became the hub of a SWAT operation.
On July 25, 2020, Wesley Little kidnapped a 15-year-old girl and held her hostage in Baker’s newly renovated property.
Three hours into the eight-hour standoff, the girl was released but Little refused to come out and he eventually killed himself.
He told officers he “had terminal cancer, wasn’t going back to
prison knew he was going to die, [and] was going to shoot it out with the police,” a lawsuit filed by Baker against the City of McKinney stated.
In an attempt to get the fugitive to surrender, SWAT stormed the property with “highly destructive tactics,” the complaint claimed.
SWAT “showered the home with explosive devices and toxic gas grenades” causing “extensive damage” to the sum of around $60,000 the suit claimed.
‘DRAINED SAVINGS’
“It was a very, very traumatic time,” the 79-year-old told The U.S. Sun as she prepares to take her fight for compensation to the Supreme Court.
“They went in through the roof…there was a hole in the roof, the back gate, the garage door, all the windows and the front door, everything,” she recalled.
Around 30 tear gas canisters were fired through the windows, impacting the building’s electrical systems which had to be replaced.
Baker’s only compensation was for the “blood clean up,” she explained.
No other property damage would be covered despite a clause in The Fifth Amendment stating, “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.”
Chilling moment man points ‘gun’ at cops sparking huge response with SWAT team, helicopter & dog unit descending on home
Baker used this “Takings Clause” as well as a similar law under the Texas Constitution to try to claim back the tens of thousands of dollars she says the city owes her.
“It was literally draining my savings,” the cancer survivor said after she was forced to go into her 401(k) to repair the property.
“It took all the cash,” and what she has left is “not enough to really survive when you’re 79 years old.”
While her compensation claim was initially granted by the court, the City launched a successful appeal in October 2023.
Baker’s petition for a rehearing was denied in February 2024, leaving herself and her legal team at the Insitute for Justice no choice but to take the matter to the highest level.
Six judges voted in favor of a rehearing, while 11 voted against, court documents show.
On Friday, Baker appealed to The Supreme Court urging judges to hear her case and make a ruling that could protect the Fifth Amendment and homeowners across the country.
Court of Appeals Decision to Overturn Baker’s Win:
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision to award Baker the damages in October 2023.
“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,” the court concluded.
It added that compensation is not due as it was “objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy that property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons.”
This argument was not made in court, meaning Baker’s lawyers could not defend her against the position which instead saw them file for a rehearing which was subsequently denied.
Baker and her attorney Jeffrey Redfern sat down with The U.S. Sun ahead of the filing.
CONSTITUTION REVERSAL
For the team, the legal issue is much larger than just $60,000, with Redfern saying that he hears of similar cases “probably every one to two weeks” meaning it is happening a lot nationwide.
He explained that he and his colleagues are continually “coming up against different arguments from the Government about why the constitution shouldn’t apply in this context,” when litigating similar cases.
“The one thing they all have in common is this idea that, ‘We’re doing something important, so we shouldn’t be constrained by these kinds of rules,'” he said.
“But the fifth amendment, in particular, was designed to make sure that even when the Government is doing something important for a really good reason, it’s not putting disproportionate burdens on random unlucky individuals like Vicky.”
The lawyer explained that this is becoming an issue in numerous cases that are not just related to SWAT damage but any situation where homeowners claim their property has been destroyed or “taken” by officials.
“That’s just a huge reversal of over a century of our legal tradition. It’s not the way things are supposed to work here,” Redfern said.
The law has to change. It just has to. I don’t see how it’s fair to anyone that they have to be responsible, especially when they’re innocent.”
Vicki Baker
While the city offered to pay Baker $60,000 after she won her first case, Baker and her lawyers wanted a two-pronged deal to offer future protection to other homeowners.
The second part of the deal was to adopt a policy change that would ensure homeowners would not have to sue to get compensation.
The city refused to enact a policy change and so the settlement agreement fell through.
“She could have taken all the money, but she wanted to make sure that things actually changed,” Redfern said.
“The only way to get that kind of a ruling was to litigate this all the way up.”
He added that lower courts are “starting to make property rights a dead letter” and that higher courts need to “step in soon and put a stop to that.”
‘REAL RISK’
It is not only property rights that are potentially affected by such rulings, as they also pose a “real risk” to the cooperation of the public with law enforcement, Redfern noted.
The majority of citizens are unaware that they may have to foot the cost of the damage to their property in situations like this and if they fail to get compensation, they may not help.
“Vicki didn’t have to call the police,” Redfern said.
“I know that Vicky is a good person and she would do it regardless, but you know, someone else might think ‘Gee, I don’t know if I want to get my house ruined, maybe I just won’t tell them that this guy is here and he’ll eventually leave.'”
“I won my first case and I feel that others should win their cases,” Baker said when asked about her motivations for her petition to the Supreme Court.
“The law has to change. It just has to. I don’t see how it’s fair to anyone that they have to be responsible, especially when they’re innocent.”
Redfern added that the additional motivation is to stop the city from thinking it can deal with Baker’s case and get away with taking the cash of other innocent victims in the future.
“The city knows that if they can just wait out Vicky, then the next time this happens, they won’t be up against pro bono lawyers.”
While The Supreme Court will not be granting any more petitions this summer, Baker and the IJ team are waiting to see if the filing gets any response from the city.
A conference will be held by the court in the fall to determine if Baker’s case will be heard.
“We’re pretty optimistic here. This is a big issue,” Redfern said.
If the case is heard and they win under the US Constitution, Vicky will be getting much more than $60,000 in post-judgemental interest.
More importantly, the win will have a ripple effect for many other property damage victims that likely would see them get paid as well.
Speaking about the policy change that his team is pushing for, the lawyer explained that homeowners be asked to show the receipts of the cost of repair and the city would write a check.
“This is not hard to prove speculative damages. It’s not going to be a bonanza for the plaintiff’s firm,” he said.
“The bottom line about these cases is it’s not at all about wrongdoing.
“We understand that human life is important and that they use these tactics to ensure that all of these police officers get to go home safe at night. That’s justifiable.
“What’s not justifiable is making innocent homeowners like Vicky Baker pay for it.
“We pay for the salaries of the police, we pay for their equipment, we pay for a criminal justice system, which is incredibly expensive and this is just one more, fairly small expense in the scheme of things.
“One more cost of criminal law enforcement and I think it’s one that we as a society should pay for together.”
The U.S. Sun has reached out to the City of Mckinney for comment.