Innocent Property Owners Deserve 'Just Compensation' When Cops Wreck Their Homes or Businesses: Two Petitions Ask the Supreme Court to Uphold the Remedy Required by the Fifth Amendment

Daily Editorials
Sun, 12 Apr 2026 21:00:00 -0700
Opinion

In 2022, police caused extensive damage to Amy Hadley's home in South Bend, Indiana, because they mistakenly believed a fugitive was inside the house. That same year, a Los Angeles SWAT team wrecked Carlos Pena's print shop while trying to arrest a fugitive who had barricaded himself inside.

Through no fault of their own, Hadley and Pena were stuck with the tab for the havoc wrought by police operations — a plainly unfair but increasingly common situation that could be rectified by the "just compensation" that the Fifth Amendment requires when property is "taken for public use." In petitions filed this week, Hadley and Pena are asking the Supreme Court to recognize that remedy.

On a Friday afternoon in June 2022, according to Hadley's petition, city and county police looking for "a dangerous fugitive" surrounded her home. They had erroneously concluded, "based on an IP address," that the fugitive was using a computer inside the house.
Updated: Mon Apr 13, 2026

In 2022, police caused extensive damage to Amy Hadley's home in South Bend, Indiana, because they mistakenly believed a fugitive was inside the house. That same year, a Los Angeles SWAT team wrecked Carlos Pena's print shop while trying to arrest a fugitive who had barricaded himself inside.

Through no fault of their own, Hadley and Pena were stuck with the tab for the havoc wrought by police operations — a plainly unfair but increasingly common situation that could be rectified by the "just compensation" that the Fifth Amendment requires when property is "taken for public use." In petitions filed this week, Hadley and Pena are asking the Supreme Court to recognize that remedy.

On a Friday afternoon in June 2022, according to Hadley's petition, city and county police looking for "a dangerous fugitive" surrounded her home. They had erroneously concluded, "based on an IP address," that the fugitive was using a computer inside the house.

In reality, the only person in the house was Hadley's 15-year-old son, who promptly obeyed police orders to come out with his hands up. Hadley, who came home shortly afterward, told police they had made a mistake, adding that security cameras confirmed no one else was inside.

The officers nevertheless fired dozens of tear gas rounds through the windows of the unoccupied house, which they eventually ransacked while searching for a fugitive who was not there and never had been. The damage, which totaled about $16,000, was only partly covered by insurance, and local officials refused to pay the difference.

A couple of months later, according to Pena's petition, he was working in his North Hollywood print shop when "heard a commotion outside." After he opened the door to see what was happening, a man running from U.S. marshals forced his way in and expelled Pena.

During the ensuing standoff, a SWAT team saturated Pena's shop with tear gas, destroying equipment valued at $60,000. The fugitive escaped, but Pena's business was ruined, and the city refused to compensate him.

Last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit barred Hadley from seeking compensation under the Fifth Amendment, saying the requirement does not cover "property damage resulting from police executing a lawful search warrant." In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit likewise blocked Pena's bid for compensation, saying the Takings Clause does not apply to property damage "necessary for the defense of public safety."

The Institute for Justice, which represents both Hadley and Pena, argues that such exceptions are not supported by the text or history of the Takings Clause, which requires compensation precisely when property is taken "for public use," meaning the intervention is legitimate. The point is not to punish abuses but to prevent the government from "forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole," as the Supreme Court put it in 1960.

Such burdens manifestly include the cost of law enforcement, which aims to protect the public from dangerous criminals like the fugitives whom police were trying to apprehend when they assaulted Hadley's home and Pena's business. The need for compensation in such cases should be obvious, especially since insurers typically do not cover damage caused by the government.

Decisions blocking compensation, Pena's lawyers note, are based on the "flawed premise" that "when the government is acting for a good reason, it would somehow be unfair or unwise to 'penalize' it by requiring it to pay for the property it takes." That premise, they argue, "fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Takings Clause, which starts from the assumption that the government is acting for a good reason."

The Supreme Court so far has declined to resolve a circuit split on this issue. These cases give the justices another chance to correct the confusion that has left innocent property owners with bills they should not have to pay.