Texas cancer survivor Vicki Baker whose home was destroyed by SWAT team using explosives, toxic gas and armored vehicles in pursuit of armed fugitive has her $60k compensation claim REJECTED

A cancer survivor has vowed to challenge an appeals court ruling stating that she is not entitled to a $60,000 payout after a SWAT team destroyed her home with explosives, toxic gas and armored vehicles while in pursuit of an armed fugitive. 

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that it was necessary for police to use the measures to resolve a standoff in July 2020 in Vicki Baker's home and that she should not be compensated for the damage - reversing an earlier decision in her favor by a federal judge. 

Lawyers from the Institute for Justice, who represent Baker, have asked the court for another hearing and are prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court. 

Her home in McKinney, Texas, was practically demolished after she called 911 to alert them that an armed fugitive was at her home.

Wesley Little, a man who had worked on her property, stormed into the property while Baker's adult daughter was home, with a teenage girl he had kidnapped. 

Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook, was the only person at the home at the time but knew that Little was on the run with the girl after seeing information from the teen's mother on Facebook.

Allowing the pair in the house, Cook claimed that she needed to go to the store and left. It was then that she called her mother and authorities.

Baker, Cook and the police met at a local WalMart where the homeowner passed along the code for the authorities to gain access to her house.

Police arrived at the property and surrounded it, working to negotiate the release of the teenage girl. 

Eventually the teen was able to exit the property, alerting authorities that Little had seven firearms inside. He later took his own life.

The original lawsuit that Baker had filed alleging a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights said: 'Eventually, the McKinney police decided to storm the house, using highly destructive tactics. 

'They knocked down the backyard fence with a BearCat (essentially a tank). They fired approximately 30 tear gas canisters through the windows of the house. They knocked down the front door and the garage door.'

'The damage to the house was extensive. Every window needed to be replaced. A hazmat remediation team needed to clean the entire house because of the tear gas. Appliances were destroyed.'

The suit continued: 'The front door and garage needed to be replaced. Tear gas canisters had smashed through the drywall. 

'Carpets, blinds, and ceiling fans needed to be replaced. The damage totaled at least $50,000.'

Speaking about the incident, Baker told Fox News: 'What I was told was the reason they did a lot of that was to bring about confusion to the perpetrator inside. 

'They call it shock and awe, so while they were doing all this damage to my house. He apparently killed himself. 

'Tear gas got my daughter's little Chihuahua, so he had to be put to sleep. Everything you have in house went.'

Her insurance policy excluded damages caused by the government, so Baker attempted to file a property damage claim with the city who refused to pay out. 

Baker then proceeded to sue to the city with the help of the Institute of Justice who successfully argued that the city had a right to seize the property, but that she should be compensated. 

The city then offered to pay out the full amount in damages, but Baker's lawyers refused to settle until the city had changed policy so it wouldn't happen again. 

A federal judge also sided with Baker, and a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. 

The city then appealed this decision, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling. 

In a court filing last month seen by Fox, they said: ' 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.'

As a result, the Institute for Justice is asking the courts to re-hear the case, and are planning an appeal to the Supreme Court, according to Fox. 

According to her lawyer Jeffrey Redfern, Baker will be paid for her troubles eventually after winning her court case under the U.S. Constitution. 

The appeals court's reversal only applies to her Fifth Amendment claim which says private property shall not 'be taken for public use, without just compensation'.