CA9: 5A takings clause doesn’t support damages claim during SWAT siege; concurrence seemingly finds 4A privilege

Pena v. City of L.A., 158 F.4th 1033 (9th Cir. 2025). From the Syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment for the City of Los Angeles in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Carlos Pena seeking compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause for property destruction that occurred after Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers pursued an armed fugitive inside his shop.

After a thirteen-hour standoff, in an attempt to subdue the fugitive, LAPD SWAT officers fired dozens of tear gas canisters through the walls, door, roof and windows of Pena’s store. The tear gas damaged the shop, as well as the inventory and equipment inside. The parties do not dispute that the officers’ conduct was authorized, reasonable, and lawful.

The panel held that the meaning of the Takings Clause at the Founding and two centuries of precedent demonstrate that the government’s destruction of private property when necessary for the defense of public safety is exempt from the scope of the Takings Clause. Because law enforcement took reasonable and necessary actions to ensure public safety in this case, their actions were beyond the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, Pena failed to state a claim under the Takings Clause.

Concurring in the judgment, Judge Friedland wrote that although she agreed with the majority that Pena did not state a Takings Clause claim, she would reach that conclusion for a different reason. She would hold that the Los Angeles police’s actions fell under the search-and-arrest privilege that serves as a background limitation on all property rights, including Pena’s here, so no property right was infringed at all and, accordingly, no compensation was owed.

Reason: Innocent Man Sues for Over $60,000 After Police Blew Up His Business. A Court Says He’s Entitled to Nothing. by Billy Binion (“It is yet another ruling that shields the government from liability for damages caused by law enforcement.”) I admit this one escaped me because it doesn’t cite the 4A. Found it on Reason.

This entry was posted in Privileges. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.