SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(US)(ca5) 420

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Baker – Appellant
Versus
City of McKinney – Respondent



United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED October 11, 2023 No. 22-40644 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Vicki Baker,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

City of McKinney, Texas,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CV-176 ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge: When an armed fugitive held a 15-year-old girl hostage inside plaintiff- appellee Vicki Baker’s home, City of McKinney (the “City”) police officers employed armored vehicles, explosives, and toxic-gas grenades to resolve the situation. The parties agree the officers only did what was necessary in an active emergency. However, Baker’s home suffered severe damage, much of her personal property was destroyed, and the City refused to provide com- pensation. Case: 22-40644 Document: 00516928161 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2023

No. 22-40644

Baker brought suit in federal court alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The district court held that as a matter of law, the City vio- lated the Takings Clause when it refused to compensate Baker for the damage and destruction of her property. The City timely appeals. We conclude that, 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 prop- erty in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons. Baker has maintained that the officers’ actions were precisely that: necessary, in light of an active emergency, to prevent imminent harm to the hostage child, to the officers who responded on the scene, and to others in her residential com- munity. Accordingly, and despite our sympathy for Ms. Baker, on whom mis- fortune fell at no fault of her own, we REVERSE. I. Baker was a long-time resident of McKinney, Texas when she made plans to sell her house and retire. She had already moved to Montana at the time of the events in question, July 25, 2020, and her adult daughter, Deanna Cook, was staying in Baker’s McKinney home to prepare it for final sale. Baker’s dog was also present at the home. On the morning of July 25, Cook saw a Facebook post that Wesley Little was on the run with a 15-year-old female “runaway.” Cook recognized Little because he “did some work inside of [Baker’s] home more than a year before the incident occurred.” Baker had fired him at that time because of comments that made Cook uncomfortable. That same morning, McKinney police spotted Little driving a Corvette with the 15-year-old girl. Officers began pursuit, but “[i]t was a very

2 Case: 22-40644 Document: 00516928161 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top