Skip to content
A Quiet Day Turned Into A Legal Battle
The chain of events leading to Vicki Baker’s legal battle began with the fugitive Wesley Little. On July 25, 2020, Little, armed and reportedly under the influence of methamphetamine, kidnapped a 15-year-old girl. After leading law enforcement on a high-speed chase, he took refuge in Baker’s unoccupied home in McKinney, Texas, which was listed for sale. He was familiar with the house because he had previously worked there as a handyman.
The Fugitive Was Recognized
Baker’s adult daughter, Deanna Cook, was at the property preparing it for its pending sale. When Little arrived at the door with the kidnapped girl, Cook recognized him from earlier news reports identifying him as a fugitive. She cleverly managed to leave the home under the guise of running an errand and immediately contacted Baker, who called the police.
McKinney Police Arrived
The McKinney Police Department responded swiftly, setting up a perimeter around the home. Negotiations with Little proved futile, as he released the girl but refused to surrender. The girl informed police that Little was heavily armed and prepared to die in a shootout. After hours of failed negotiations, the SWAT team resorted to extreme measures to neutralize the threat. They launched numerous tear gas grenades into the house, demolished doors with explosives, and drove a tank-like vehicle through the backyard fence to gain entry. Ultimately, Little took his own life before officers could apprehend him.
The Destruction Left Behind
The destruction left Baker’s property in ruins. The tear gas permeated every corner of the home, requiring hazardous material cleanup. Structural damage included broken windows, shattered doors, and destroyed walls and ceilings. The damages rendered the property uninhabitable and caused the potential buyer to back out of the sale.
Insurance Won’t Cover Acts From The Government
Vicki Baker’s plight was exacerbated by the refusal of her homeowner’s insurance to cover the extensive damages caused to her property during the SWAT operation. Insurance companies commonly exclude certain categories of damages from coverage, and in Baker’s case, the destruction was classified as an “act of government.” This designation effectively rendered her policy inapplicable, leaving Baker with no financial recourse to address the catastrophic damage inflicted on her home.
What Are Acts Of Government?
The concept of excluding “acts of government” from insurance coverage is not unusual. Policies often include clauses that specifically limit liability for damages resulting from government actions, whether those actions are due to eminent domain, regulatory measures, or emergency responses like those conducted by law enforcement. These exclusions are intended to shield insurers from liabilities tied to unpredictable, large-scale events beyond the insured’s control. Unfortunately, such provisions frequently leave property owners like Baker vulnerable when their property becomes collateral damage in scenarios involving public safety interventions.
The Out-Of-Pocket Expensive Was Significant
For Baker, this exclusion compounded the financial and emotional toll of the incident. The SWAT team’s efforts to apprehend a fugitive who had barricaded himself in her home led to severe structural damage and contamination by tear gas. Essential parts of the house, including doors, windows, ceilings, and the backyard fence, were destroyed. Personal property such as heirlooms and other belongings were irreparably damaged. The home, which was under contract for sale, became uninhabitable, causing the buyer to back out of the agreement. Without insurance coverage, Baker faced significant out-of-pocket costs to repair the damage and restore her home to a sellable condition.
The Lack Of Coverage Is An Issue For Innocent Homeowners
This lack of coverage highlights a broader issue for property owners caught in similar situations. Standard homeowner’s insurance policies often fail to address damages arising from unique but devastating scenarios like police interventions. For Baker, the exclusion reinforced the inequity of being left to bear the financial burden for destruction caused by a public safety operation that benefitted the broader community. The situation underscores the need for property owners to scrutinize insurance policies carefully and for policymakers to consider the gaps in coverage that leave homeowners exposed in cases of government-related damage.
Filed For The City To Compensate Her
After her homeowner’s insurance refused to cover the damage to her house, Vicki Baker turned to the City of McKinney for compensation. Baker’s logic was clear: the city’s police officers directly caused the destruction during a SWAT operation to apprehend an armed fugitive. She argued that because the city’s actions, taken for public safety, led to the damage, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause entitled her to compensation. The clause requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use.
Baker submitted a formal claim to the city, seeking reimbursement for her losses. However, the city denied her claim outright, citing the established legal doctrine that exempts governments from liability for damages caused in the exercise of police powers. This doctrine rests on the understanding that police actions, especially during emergencies, are not “takings” under the Fifth Amendment and do not require compensation. The city argued that the police intervention was necessary to resolve a dangerous situation and protect public safety, thereby falling within its inherent authority.
She Then Filed The Lawsuit With The Federal Court
Following the denial, Baker filed a lawsuit against the city in federal court. She asserted that the city’s refusal to compensate her violated the Takings Clause. Initially, the district court sided with Baker, ruling that the city was liable for the destruction of her property and awarding her nearly $60,000 in damages. However, this victory was short-lived.
Why The Fifth Court Denied Her Claim
The court denied Vicki Baker’s claim based on the legal principle that damages caused by law enforcement during necessary and reasonable actions to protect public safety do not constitute a compensable “taking” under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires compensation when the government takes private property for public use, but it does not cover actions taken under the government’s police power to address emergencies and prevent imminent harm.
The Destruction Of Her Home Was Deemed Necessary
In Baker’s case, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the destruction of her home was not a “taking” requiring compensation. Instead, the court determined that the police actions were necessary to neutralize a life-threatening situation involving a heavily armed fugitive and a hostage. The court reasoned that these actions fell under the doctrine of “necessity,” a long-established legal exception to the Takings Clause. This doctrine permits governments to destroy private property without compensation if the actions are essential to safeguarding the public from immediate danger.
The Distinct Difference Of Police Power
The courts further highlighted the distinction between the government’s exercise of police power and eminent domain. While eminent domain involves planned takings for public projects (like roads or parks) that clearly require compensation, police power actions are reactive and aim to address urgent threats. The courts emphasized that compensating property owners for damages arising from police interventions would create significant financial and logistical burdens on law enforcement, potentially hindering their ability to respond effectively in emergencies.
Damages From Lawful Police Are Non-Compensable
Moreover, precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts has consistently upheld the view that damages from lawful police activities do not invoke the Takings Clause. For example, cases involving damage caused during criminal investigations or public safety operations have uniformly concluded that such incidents are non-compensable under the Fifth Amendment.
What Is The Fifth Amendment?
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a cornerstone of American legal protections, enshrining essential rights for individuals in the face of governmental power. Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it encompasses a range of safeguards designed to protect against abuse in both criminal and civil contexts.
The amendment states: “No person can face charges for a capital or infamous crime without a presentment or indictment from a Grand Jury, except in cases involving the land or naval forces, or the Militia during active service in times of war or public danger. No one can be tried twice for the same offense, forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case, or deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Additionally, the government cannot take private property for public use without providing just compensation.”
Five Main Components
The amendment comprises five main protections. First, it guarantees the right to a grand jury in federal criminal cases, ensuring prosecutors present sufficient evidence before bringing someone to trial. Second, it prohibits double jeopardy, so the government cannot try a person twice for the same crime. Third, it provides protection against self-incrimination, allowing individuals to refuse to testify against themselves in criminal cases—a principle often referred to as “pleading the Fifth.” Fourth, it guarantees due process, ensuring fair legal proceedings before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. Finally, the Takings Clause prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation, balancing the needs of the public with the rights of property owners.
The Fifth Amendment is pivotal in maintaining the balance between individual rights and government authority, forming the foundation for legal interpretations and civil liberties in the United States.
Need Help? Call Us Now!
Do not forget that when you or anyone you know is facing a criminal charge, you have us, the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, by your side to help you build the best defense case for you. We will work and be in your best interest for you and we will obtain the best possible outcome that can benefit you.
Our team is here to explain your trial, guiding you through the criminal justice process with clarity and support every step of the way. If you’re navigating the complexities of criminal charges and the court system seems daunting, reach out.
Therefore, do not hesitate to call us if you find yourself or someone you know that is facing criminal charges unsure about the court system. We will work with you to give you the best type of defense that can help you solve your case. It is vital to have someone explain the result of the charge to you and guide you in the best possible way.
Here at the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, our professional and knowledgeable criminal law attorneys build a defense case that suits your needs, aiming for the best possible outcome to benefit you.
At the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, we offer a free consultation at your convenience. You can schedule your appointment via Zoom, Google Meet, email, or in person. We provide comprehensive advice and information to help you achieve the best possible result in your case.
Call us now at (281) 810-9760.
Other Related Articles
Right of First Refusal Texas Custody: How to Include It in Your Custody Agreement
Navigating Disputes Over the First Right of Refusal in Texas
Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Program Application
The Capitol Siege: A Dark Day in American Democracy
Strange Protest: Protestor Risky Climb Of The Las Vegas Sphere
Fifth Amendment FAQs
The Fifth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution that protects individuals against abuse of government power. It includes protections such as the right to a grand jury, prohibition of double jeopardy, protection from self-incrimination, the right to due process, and just compensation for taken property.
‘Pleading the Fifth’ refers to invoking the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. It allows individuals to refuse to answer questions in legal proceedings that might incriminate themselves.
The Takings Clause states that private property cannot be taken for public use without ‘just compensation.’ This clause ensures that if the government takes property, it must pay fair market value for it.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits ‘double jeopardy,’ meaning a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense after being acquitted or convicted, ensuring finality in legal proceedings.
Due process guarantees fair treatment through the judicial system before the government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. This includes the right to a fair trial, notice, and an opportunity to be heard.
