Why isn’t this a taking under the 5th amendment?
-
Gemini remembers.
Yes, there is a very specific and high-profile case that fits your description almost perfectly.
The case involves a man named Leo Lech in Greenwood Village, Colorado.
The Case of Lech v. Jackson (2015)
The Incident
In June 2015, a shoplifter named Robert Seacat fled from police and randomly broke into a suburban home owned by Leo Lech (where his son was living at the time). The suspect had no connection to the Lech family; he simply chose their house at random to hide from the pursuing officers.The Police Response
The police surrounded the house, resulting in a 19-hour standoff. To extract the suspect, the SWAT team employed "overwhelming force," which included:- Firing nearly 40 rounds of tear gas into the home.
- detonating explosives to blast open walls.
- Driving a BearCat armored vehicle through the doors and walls.
The Aftermath
By the time the suspect was apprehended, the home was completely destroyed. It was declared uninhabitable and had to be demolished. The damage was valued at roughly $400,000.The Compensation
The city of Greenwood Village offered the Lech family $5,000 in temporary assistance but refused to pay for the rebuilding of the home. The family's homeowners insurance paid a portion, but they were still left with a significant financial gap.When Lech sued the city for "Just Compensation" under the Fifth Amendment (the Takings Clause), the federal courts ruled against him.
Why Was Compensation Denied?
The legal reasoning used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit relies on a distinction between Eminent Domain and Police Power.
- Eminent Domain: If the government takes your property for public use (like building a road or a school), they must pay you "just compensation."
- Police Power: The court ruled that if the government destroys property while enforcing criminal law (arresting a suspect, protecting public safety), it falls under "police power," not eminent domain.
The court held that because the police were acting to arrest a criminal and protect the public, they were not "taking" the property for public use in the traditional sense. Therefore, the city was not constitutionally required to compensate the innocent homeowner.
Other Similar Cases
While the Lech case is the most famous example of a random "fugitive entry," there are others:
- Shaniz West (Idaho): Police surrounded her home looking for her ex-boyfriend. She gave them keys to enter, but instead, they bombarded the house with tear gas grenades, damaging the walls and destroying her belongings. The suspect wasn't even inside. The court ruled the officers had "qualified immunity" and she received no compensation.
- Carlos Pena (Los Angeles): In August 2022, a fugitive ran into Pena's print shop. The LAPD SWAT team fired over 30 tear gas canisters and destroyed the shop's inventory and machinery. A federal appeals panel ruled in 2025 that the city owed him nothing.
Is This Always the Outcome?
Not always, but it is the general rule in federal court. However, there was a rare victory for a homeowner in Texas recently (Baker v. City of McKinney). In that case, a federal judge ruled that under the Texas Constitution, the city did have to pay for damaging a home while chasing a fugitive. This suggests the law may vary depending on which state you live in and whether you sue under state or federal law.
-
-
So how does it work if it’s the criminal’s property?
Guy goes nuts, barricades himself in the house while his wife is at work and kids are at school… Has a shootout with the cops, and the place gets destroyed…Are the wife and the kids left holding the bag? Having an unlivable home with no ability to repair?
If you set this precedent for the business owner, do you also set a precedent for family members of the perps?
-
Indeed. It would hard to find someone who would say ‘this is how it should work’. It seems manifestly unjust to anyone except, I suppose, a federal judge.
@jon-nyc said in Why isn’t this a taking under the 5th amendment?:
Indeed. It would hard to find someone who would say ‘this is how it should work’. It seems manifestly unjust to anyone except, I suppose, a federal judge.
Not sure a judge, federal or otherwise, would say this is "just" either. It seems to me the judge in this case says only that "this is what the law is" rather than "this is just."
-
@jon-nyc said in Why isn’t this a taking under the 5th amendment?:
Indeed. It would hard to find someone who would say ‘this is how it should work’. It seems manifestly unjust to anyone except, I suppose, a federal judge.
Not sure a judge, federal or otherwise, would say this is "just" either. It seems to me the judge in this case says only that "this is what the law is" rather than "this is just."
@Axtremus said in Why isn’t this a taking under the 5th amendment?:
@jon-nyc said in Why isn’t this a taking under the 5th amendment?:
Indeed. It would hard to find someone who would say ‘this is how it should work’. It seems manifestly unjust to anyone except, I suppose, a federal judge.
Not sure a judge, federal or otherwise, would say this is "just" either. It seems to me the judge in this case says only that "this is what the law is" rather than "this is just."
Right. Justice has only indirectly to do with their job, insofar as their job has to do with interpreting the law, and the laws tend to be just. But the word "justice" is right there in the constitution, so there is that.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice"
