Last July, in a suburb north of Dallas, a fugitive took refuge in a suburban house that was listed for sale. After a prolonged standoff, a SWAT team stormed the house, launching tear-gas grenades through windows, knocking down doors, leveling a fence with an armored vehicle. When the smoke cleared, it seemed as if the nightmare was over, but for the homeowner, it had just begun.Vicki Baker, who owned the home, had spent a year fixing it up to sell it. In fact, it was under contract and set to close a few days after the raid. But afterwards, the buyer understandably walked away. The home was in a shambles and both the city and Vicki’s insurance company refused to pay for the lion’s share of what it would eventually cost to repair her house. The city effectively said, “tough luck.â€That’s not merely unfair; it’s unconstitutional. When the government deliberately destroys an innocent owner’s property in service of the public good—in this case, public safety—it is obligated to compensate that owner. In this case, the police determined that the public benefit of apprehending a fugitive outweighed the costs of destroying the house he was inside. That was their decision to make, but—under both the federal and Texas constitutions—they must pay for it.
