Supreme Court declines to decide if police-damaged property warrants compensation
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear three petitions asking whether owners can claim compensation when police destroy or seize their property.
On Monday the Supreme Court rejected three cases that sought clarification of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause as it relates to police-inflicted property loss. The disputes involve Amy Hadley, whose South Bend home suffered at least $16,000 in damage after a mistaken tear-gas raid; Carlos Pena, whose North Hollywood printing business was destroyed by a SWAT team, resulting in roughly $60,000 in losses; and two Chicago motorists, Ryan O'Donnell and Michael Goree, whose cars were seized and sold for minor parking violations.
The 7th Circuit has ruled that property destroyed under "police power" is immune from takings claims, while the 9th Circuit allows an exemption only when police actions are deemed "necessary." Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted the conflicting lower-court approaches and warned that the issue remains unresolved, urging further judicial consideration.
Why it matters
The decision leaves homeowners and businesses without clear recourse for police-caused damage, highlighting a gap in constitutional property rights.
In this story
