Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?

Question

For purposes of conjecture, say some nameless online troll decides that they hate you. Perhaps you said you don't worship the members of a K-Pop band they like. As a result, they do some research and find your address. They then proceed to call your local police department, reporting a (fictional) hostage situation / homicide in progress / etc. at your address. The police department's SWAT team busts down your door and trashes your house. This is a "prank" called swatting. As is the troll's intention, it causes a lot of damage to your property, damage you can't afford to get repaired.

Is there any way to get the police department to pay for the damage? After all, they did just come and trash your house despite you having done nothing wrong (besides the horrendous crime of not worshiping the troll's favorite band).

Answer 1

There is a police power exception to the 5th and 14th Amendment rights to not taking property without due process of law and just compensation.

In a similar case arising in Greenwood Village, Colorado, an innocent homeowner was denied any relief at trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or on appeal to the 10th Circuit, after his house was trashed by SWAT teams trying to catch a guy accused of mere theft and fleeing police officers. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case sometime after the linked article was written.)

But, there does appear to be a circuit split on the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a case appealed from a U.S. District Court decision in Texas reached a contrary conclusion in a case between Vicki Baker and the City of McKinney, Texas decided earlier this month in March of 2023 in which it affirmed a U.S. District Court ruling in favor of the homewoner.

The fact that there is now a circuit split on the issue increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would consider a Petition for Certiorari from the 5th Circuit decision in the Texas case, although it is far from a sure thing as only about 1% of Petitions for Certiorari presented to the U.S. Supreme Court (about 80 out of 7,000 to 8,000 per year) are granted.

The key issue distinguishing these two rulings is the question of whether the police power exception to the eminent domain obligation of a government applies to cases in which the person whose property is taken is innocent of any wrongdoing and any legally relevant connection to a wrongdoer. Both circuits would agree that a government does not have eminent domain liability under the constitution if, for example, the property destroyed belongs to someone who committed a crime and has their house destroyed in the process of trying to arrest the criminal.

Also, neither of the decisions disputes that police may, under the police power exception, destroy property in connection with efforts to apprehend a criminal or to prevent a crime, without seeking court approval in the usual situation where there are exigent circumstances that can't wait for the slow process of conducting a court hearing on the question. The question, instead, is whether an innocent property owner has a right to bring an "inverse condemnation" lawsuit to remedy the damage that the innocent property owner has experienced.

Answer 2

If the police received a 911 call which was designed to make it appear as if there was a huge danger at your home, and the police act accordingly, that’s bad luck. You should get compensation from the troll if they can be found, but not from the police.

If “trashing your house” was done deliberately to cause damage, and not because police expected a dangerous situation. Then you will have a hard time proving it.

I suspect your home insurance might have to pay for the damage, at least it would be worth checking. They are more likely to pay than the police.

Answer 3

texas

In one particular recent (at the time of this posting) case [ref1] [ref2] [ref3], the homeowner sued not for damages but under 5th amendment's Eminent Domain doctrine.

The Federal Judge ruled that “the destruction to [Plaintiff]’s home was intentional and foreseeable.”

In this case, a fugitive was sheltered inside the plaintiff's house and had no hostage. The plaintiff claimed the defendants (law enforcement) seized the plaintiff's house to capture the fugitive.

The homeowner legal counsel, in a statement, declared it doesn't matter "whether the government official destroying your home has a business card from the Roads Department or the Police Department."

While the damage was caused by the SWAT pursuing a fugitive and not from a prank phone call, it still bears enough similarities.

The case could still go on appeal and be reversed, though.