Innocent Property Owners Seek Supreme Court Remedy for Police Damage

Two petitions ask the high court to uphold the Fifth Amendment's 'just compensation' requirement when police operations wreck homes or businesses.

Apr. 8, 2026 at 7:00am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

An extreme close-up of a shattered window frame, glass shards, and torn curtains, conceptually illustrating the damage caused to a private home during a police operation.A police raid's aftermath leaves an innocent homeowner with a hefty repair bill, raising questions about the Fifth Amendment's 'just compensation' guarantee.South Bend Today

In 2022, police caused extensive damage to Amy Hadley's home in South Bend, Indiana, and a Los Angeles SWAT team wrecked Carlos Pena's print shop while trying to arrest fugitives. Through no fault of their own, Hadley and Pena were stuck with the tab for the havoc wrought by police operations. Now, they are asking the Supreme Court to recognize the 'just compensation' that the Fifth Amendment requires when property is 'taken for public use'.

Why it matters

Decisions blocking compensation for innocent property owners 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.' This fundamentally misunderstands the Takings Clause, which starts from the assumption that the government is acting for a good reason and still requires compensation.

The details

In 2022, police surrounded Amy Hadley's home in South Bend, Indiana, based on the mistaken belief that a fugitive was inside. They fired dozens of tear gas rounds through the windows and ransacked the unoccupied house, causing $16,000 in damage. In the same year, a SWAT team in Los Angeles saturated Carlos Pena's print shop with tear gas during a standoff with a fugitive, destroying $60,000 worth of equipment. Both Hadley and Pena were denied compensation by local officials.

  • In June 2022, police surrounded Hadley's home in South Bend, Indiana.
  • A couple of months later in 2022, the SWAT team incident occurred at Pena's print shop in North Hollywood.

The players

Amy Hadley

A South Bend, Indiana resident whose home was extensively damaged by police in 2022 while they were searching for a fugitive who was not actually present.

Carlos Pena

The owner of a print shop in North Hollywood, California, whose business was destroyed by a SWAT team's tear gas deployment in 2022 during a standoff with a fugitive.

Institute for Justice

The organization representing both Hadley and Pena in their petitions to the Supreme Court.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The need for compensation in such cases should be obvious, especially since insurers typically do not cover damage caused by the government.”

— Institute for Justice, Representing Hadley and Pena

“Decisions blocking compensation 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.' This premise 'fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Takings Clause, which starts from the assumption that the government is acting for a good reason'.”

— Institute for Justice, Representing Hadley and Pena

What’s next

The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the petitions filed by Hadley and Pena, which could resolve the circuit split on whether the Fifth Amendment's 'just compensation' requirement applies when police operations damage private property.

The takeaway

This case highlights the need for the Supreme Court to clarify that the Fifth Amendment's 'just compensation' guarantee applies when the government, acting for a legitimate public purpose, damages private property. Innocent property owners should not be forced to bear the full cost of such government actions.