Hadley v. City of South Bend, 2025 WL 2837973 (7th Cir. 2025)
When law enforcement officers showed up, Amy Hadley was away from her home in South Bend, Indiana, which she shared with her two children. Officers were looking for John Parnell Thomas (not the disgraced, crooked Congressman from New Jersey, but the other one) who had fatally shot two people: his girlfriend and a man named Eric Johnson.
Investigators got information suggesting Thomas had accessed his Facebook account from Amy Hadley’s Wi-Fi network. They established surveillance on the home but saw no indication Thomas was present. The next day, authorities received evidence of a second access attempt over Hadley’s wireless network. Armed with the IP evidence, they obtained a warrant to search Hadley’s house.
As officers prepared to enter, Hadley’s 15-year-old son was the only one at home. Officers used a bullhorn to shout instructions to Thomas (who wasn’t there), demanding his surrender. Amy Hadley arrived home and told the assembled law enforcement personnel she didn’t know who Thomas was or where he might be.
Apparently not believing her, the officers then broke windows and fired 30 canisters of tear gas into the home. They also tore down internal security cameras, punched holes in the walls, ransacked furniture and a closet, and tore down a panel on a wall and a fan in a bathroom.
The huge amount of gas seeped into many of Hadley’s household items, rendering them unusable. It also made the home temporarily uninhabitable, forcing Hadley to sleep in her car for days.
“The Fifth Amendment does not require the government to compensate property owners for damage caused by police officers performing a legal search.”
As it turned out, the information the officers used to support the warrant was erroneous, though there was no evidence officers knew of the mistake. Amy Hadley sought payment for the $16,000 in damages from both the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County. Each denied her claim, prompting Hadley to file suit.
The trial court dismissed Hadley’s complaint, finding precedent established that she had no right to compensation for property damage resulting from the execution of a valid search warrant. Hadley appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel cited precedent holding the Fifth Amendment does not require the government to compensate property owners for damage caused by police officers performing a legal search.
Some may read the summary above and come to the conclusion that this finding was unjust. Others, reading the extensive list of damages recited by the trial court, may wonder why the execution of the search warrant was so destructive. As an attorney with extensive experience in the defense of claims against officers and departments, I am certain the legal fees to the private law firms that defended the municipal and county officers far exceeded $16,000. Many agencies, in my opinion, probably would have chosen to write a check to the homeowner rather than fight her claims in court.
Other courts of appeal have considered similar cases, with varied results. One example is a case we covered two years ago from McKinney, Texas, where the 5th Circuit found “the Takings Clause does not require compensation for damaged or destroyed property when it was objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy that property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons” (Baker v. City of McKinney, 84 F.4th 378 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 11 (2024)).
Moreover, in their statement denying certiorari for the Baker v. City of McKinney case, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch both expressed a willingness to reconsider the precedent relied upon in this decision to deny Hadley’s claims. After reviewing several pertinent precedents, they noted, “Whether any such exception exists (and how the Takings Clause applies when the government destroys property pursuant to its police power) is an important and complex question that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this Court’s intervention.”
Officers should not be assured that similar mistakes and similar extensive damages will be easily barred by other courts.
