Los Angeles, California — A recent federal appeals court ruling has reignited debate over the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause after judges concluded that a business owner whose property was destroyed by police during a manhunt is not entitled to compensation.
The case centers on Carlos Pena, whose North Hollywood printing shop was devastated during a 13-hour LAPD standoff in August 2022. Officers fired dozens of tear gas canisters into the building while searching for an armed fugitive who had barricaded himself inside. The suspect ultimately escaped, but Pena’s business was left unusable, with damages exceeding $60,000. After unsuccessfully seeking reimbursement from the city, Pena filed suit, arguing that the destruction amounted to a government taking for public safety purposes.
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected that argument, ruling that no constitutional taking occurs when police reasonably destroy private property in defense of public safety. The decision adds to a growing split among federal courts over whether the Takings Clause applies when property is damaged under police power rather than eminent domain.
Other circuits have reached similar conclusions, though some judges have openly acknowledged the fairness concerns raised when innocent property owners are left to absorb public costs alone. The Supreme Court has so far declined to intervene, signaling that further lower-court rulings are needed before resolving the constitutional tension.
For now, the result leaves business owners like Pena without compensation, even when they play no role in the emergency that destroys their livelihood.
Sources:
Discover more from News Facts Network
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
