Who Is Responsible When a Police Raid Goes Terribly Wrong at Your House?

After more than a year of fixing up her Texas home, Vicki Baker was just days away from closing on its sale. But then, local law enforcement knocked down the backyard fence with a BearCat, blew up the garage door, and detonated roughly 30 tear gas grenades inside the house.

It was all to apprehend a fugitive who had forced his way in and taken refuge in Baker's home after kidnapping a teenage girl. The girl was released unharmed, but the suspect refused to exit the home, prompting SWAT involvement. After the raid, the buyers understandably walked away from the deal, and Baker was left with a house in ruins and roughly $60,000 in damages.

First, she went to her insurance company for compensation, but she was told that the acts of the government weren’t covered. That's a common provision in home insurance policies, her lawyer, Jeffery Redfern, tells Realtor.com®.

Then, she went to the city, who said it wouldn’t pay because it hadn’t done anything wrong.

Baker, who had funded the original repairs to get the home on the market with money from her 401(k), was at a loss. She wasn’t the suspect in the raid, but she had certainly become a victim.

When the government destroys your property in the name of public safety, who pays?

'You break it, you buy it?' The legal gray zone of SWAT raids

Ultimately, Baker decided to sue the city for damages. At the center of her case is the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says the government must compensate property owners when it destroys or seizes property for public use. Traditionally, that’s applied to the use of eminent domain for things like highways or public works projects. But does it apply when police deliberately wreck a private home during a raid?

“Getting criminals off the street is absolutely a core function of the government. We all benefit from having that happen, but it’s not fair to have one random, unlucky individual bear all that cost,” Redfern explains. 

“There’s a famous line from a Supreme Court case about 50 years ago that says the purpose of the Takings Clause is to prevent the government from forcing some individuals to bear burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by society as a whole. And I thought, you know, that logic fits here," he adds. "We view this as no different than paying for police officer salaries or jails, which we all do through taxes."

Yet when homes are damaged in SWAT raids, some police departments claim immunity, arguing that destruction caused in the course of law enforcement isn’t subject to the Takings Clause. That legal shield has left some homeowners footing bills for crimes they had nothing to do with.

How often does this happen? More often than you might think

It’s difficult to pin down exactly how often police raids leave homeowners with huge repair bills. There’s no national database of SWAT activity, according to Redfern. His team is working on research to get better estimates, but for now, much of the data comes from litigation.

What is clear: SWAT teams are deployed roughly 100 times a day across the U.S., he says. Most involve routine warrant service that results in little more than a splintered doorframe or torn-up furniture. But the high-profile raids that leave homes uninhabitable—like Baker’s—aren’t rare outliers either. 

“I hear about these cases probably every few weeks,” Redfern says.

When that destruction happens, homeowners are often left with no clear legal recourse. Since insurance policies often exclude government action, and many cities deny responsibility, owners are forced to either pay out of pocket or launch costly legal battles.

Courts can’t agree—and homeowners are stuck in the middle

Baker isn’t the only one to fight for damages, and courts across the country have all issued wildly different rulings on whether homeowners are owed compensation after police raids. The Fifth Circuit (Texas), Tenth Circuit (Colorado), and Sixth Circuit (Tennessee) have all reached conflicting conclusions, leaving no national standard.

That means for now, protections vary by state. In Texas and Minnesota, courts have said state constitutions require compensation. Elsewhere, homeowners may be left to fend for themselves.

One other case—Martin v. United States—could create limited precedent, but only in situations where federal agents are responsible. 

After the FBI mistakenly raided the home of Trina Martin, her son, and her boyfriend, terrifying the family, they sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court unanimously revived the case in 2025, sending it back for review and opening the door for a potential landmark ruling on whether victims of federal wrong-house raids can finally receive compensation.

But, as Redfern notes, “Unfortunately, the majority of this kind of SWAT destruction is happening at the hands of state and local agents,” which could leave a gap in precedent.

Why location matters

The aftermath of a SWAT raid often depends less on what happened in your home and more on where you live. In some towns, officials step up and pay for the damage as a matter of principle. 

“In probably half these cases, the municipality just pays for the damage,” says Redfern. “Whether they think they’re required to by law or they just think it’s the right thing to do.”

But in other cities, the first response is to deny the claim, pushing homeowners into years of costly litigation. That’s where bureaucracy, not budget, often dictates outcomes. 

As Redfern puts it: “Even small towns can afford to pay for $60,000 in damages every couple decades. But it is ruinous frequently to the average homeowner.”

The fight for a national standard

The Supreme Court declined to hear Baker’s case, but Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor made clear that the issue isn’t going away. 

“I write separately to emphasize that petitioner raises a serious question: whether the Takings Clause permits the government to destroy private property without paying just compensation, as long as the government had no choice but to do so,” Sotomayor wrote.

She goes on to compare the razing of Baker’s home to building a public park.

“Baker undoubtedly would be entitled to compensation" in that instance, Sotomayor said. “Here, the McKinney police destroyed Baker’s home for a different public benefit: to protect local residents and themselves from an armed and dangerous individual. Under the Fifth Circuit’s decision, Baker alone must bear the cost of that public benefit.”

That unresolved question is now driving a wave of new cases. Legal scholars are increasingly arguing that destruction during a police raid fits squarely under the Constitution’s Takings Clause, and ongoing litigation in federal and state courts could force the issue back before the Supreme Court.

Public opinion may already be there. As Redfern recalls from jury selection in Baker’s case: “The attorney for the government asked, ‘How would you feel if your taxes had to go up to pay for this kind of damage?’ And [jurors] said, ‘Absolutely. I’ll open my own wallet. If she’s entitled to compensation, that’s exactly what government should be paying for.’”

Until a national standard is set, homeowners remain at the mercy of geography—compensated in some cities, abandoned in others—while bearing costs that, in fairness and justice, belong to the public.