This is an update to a case from 2021: "A SWAT Team Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Cost Her Over $50,000. The City Tried To Stop Her From Suing." [1]
The main law at issue is the Takings Clause [2]:
> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Bonus context from a Techdirt article, "Fifth Circuit: The Government Doesn’t Need To Pay You For The Home It Destroyed To Effect An Arrest" [1]:
>> We conclude that, as a matter of history and precedent, 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 has maintained that the officers’ actions were precisely that: necessary, in light of an active emergency, to prevent imminent harm to the hostage child, to the officers who responded on the scene, and to others in her residential community. Accordingly, and despite our sympathy for Ms. Baker, on whom misfortune fell at no fault of her own, we REVERSE.
...
> But the reasoning is flawed, starting with the cops’ own justification. By the time they surrounded the house, there was no possibility of “imminent harm to the hostage child.”
>> Soon after, Little released the girl and she exited the house.
...
> Whatever was said or unsaid, the cops chose their plan of action, and that plan involved destroying the house despite being given access and an open invitation to enter the house through a variety of entrances.
The main law at issue is the Takings Clause [2]:
> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[1] https://reason.com/2021/11/29/swat-team-blew-up-innocent-wom...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment