Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > in.general > #689

This Indiana City Doesn't Have To Pay an Innocent Mom $16,000 After Police Wrecked Her Home, Court Rules

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

https://reason.com/2025/10/10/this-indiana-city-doesnt-have-to-pay-an-
innocent-mom-16000-after-police-wrecked-her-home-court-rules/?nab=1

Law enforcement launched 30 tear gas canisters into Amy Hadley's home, 
smashed windows, ransacked furniture, destroyed security cameras, and 
more. The government gave her nothing.

https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c1200x675-w1200-
q80/uploads/2025/10/Billy-Amy-Hadley-1200x675.png.webp

An Indiana woman whose home sustained severe damage during a police raid 
set in motion by a faulty investigation is not legally entitled to 
compensation, a federal court ruled this week, in yet another case that 
asked what innocent people are owed when the government destroys their 
property in pursuit of public safety.

In June 2022, a group of law enforcement officers arrived at Amy Hadley's 
South Bend home, where they launched 30 tear gas canisters, smashed 
windows, ransacked furniture, destroyed security cameras, ripped down a 
panel and a fan, and punched holes in the walls. They were searching for a 
suspect, John Parnell Thomas, who they believed, based on his IP address, 
had accessed the internet from Hadley house. They would not find him, 
however, because he had never been there.

In addition to the structural damage, Hadley's personal possessions, like 
her clothing and beds, were ruined by the tear gas. She and her son slept 
in her car for several days after the raid.

Yet her luck would continue to sour. After Hadley asked the government to 
compensate her for $16,000 in damages, it came back with a strange 
response: No. In that vein, she joined a growing list of innocent people 
whose property was damaged by law enforcement, only to be told they must 
shoulder the financial burden of that individually. (Many insurance 
policies explicitly refuse to reimburse damage caused by the government.)

So, she sued. Such suits primarily hinge on one question: Does the Takings 
Clause of the Fifth Amendment—which promises that the government cannot 
take private property without providing "just compensation"—apply when the 
government is exercising its "police power"?

Several federal courts have answered in the negative.

That includes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which heard 
Hadley's case. "The Fifth Amendment does not require the state to 
compensate for property damage resulting from police executing a lawful 
search warrant," wrote Judge Joshua Kolar for the unanimous panel, relying 
on Johnson v. Manitowoc County, a 2011 precedent from the court. "That is 
precisely what happened here: the damage Hadley suffered happened because 
police executed a lawful search warrant in her home."

Cases with similarly situated plaintiffs have worked their way through the 
courts in recent years. Leo Lech's $580,000 family home in Greenwood 
Village, Colorado, was condemned and demolished after police effectively 
destroyed it while pursuing a suspect who had broken in and barricaded 
himself inside. The city gave him $5,000. Los Angeles business owner 
Carlos Pena saw his printing shop and equipment ruined, and his livelihood 
crippled, in the same scenario: A fugitive, unrelated to Pena, broke in 
while trying to evade police. The government declined to pay him damages, 
which exceed $60,000; a ruling on the matter is forthcoming from the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Whether or not this interpretation of the law—that a takings claim is 
foreclosed if property is destroyed in the context of police power—will 
survive in the long term is an open question. The Supreme Court declined 
to weigh in last year on a petition submitted by Vicki Baker, whose Texas 
home and possessions were ruined by police in their attempt to coax out a 
fugitive who had hidden inside. But two justices signaled they may 
consider the issue in the future. The relationship between the Takings 
Clause and police power "is an important and complex question," wrote 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a statement joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, 
"that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to 
this Court's intervention."

So what's next for Hadley? Her attorneys at the Institute for Justice, a 
public interest law firm, said they plan to continue pursuing the case, 
both in state court and with a request for a rehearing en banc, in which 
the full 7th Circuit—as opposed to a three-judge panel—would reconsider 
the matter.

The decision this week included an additional interesting nugget. Hadley 
"could have sued police alleging they violated the Fourth Amendment by 
executing their search warrant unreasonably," wrote Kolar. "But she did 
not. And though she would have had to overcome a qualified-immunity 
defense, that burden is not insurmountable."

Perhaps. But while qualified immunity—the legal doctrine that dooms such 
suits unless a plaintiff can prove the government's alleged constitutional 
violation was "clearly established" at the time of the offense—is not 
insurmountable, it is difficult to circumvent. That may be especially 
relevant here when considering that the plaintiff in Johnson, the 
precedent the 7th Circuit relied on to reject Hadley's claim, primarily 
lost his suit on Fourth Amendment grounds.


-- 
November 5, 2024 - Congratulations President Donald Trump.  We look 
forward to America being great again.

We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that 
stupid people won't be offended.

Every day is an IQ test. Some pass, some, not so much.

Thank you for cleaning up the disasters of the 2008-2017, 2020-2024 Obama 
/ Biden / Harris fiascos, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the 
The World According To Garp.  Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood 
queer liberal democrat donors.

Back to in.general | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

This Indiana City Doesn't Have To Pay an Innocent Mom $16,000 After Police Wrecked Her Home, Court Rules "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoetoro@americans-first.com> - 2025-10-25 20:41 +0000

csiph-web