SWAT Raid Fallout: McKinney Ordered To Compensate Homeowner
A ruling years in the making affirms property rights in a case previously reported by The Dallas Express.
A federal judge has ordered the City of McKinney to pay nearly $60,000 in damages to a woman whose home was destroyed during a 2020 SWAT standoff—despite her having no connection to the fugitive inside.
Vicki Baker, a cancer patient and retired grandmother, was preparing to relocate to Montana when police descended on her property. The SWAT team was pursuing her former handyman, who had barricaded himself inside her McKinney home.
'I told them, 'Please don't destroy my house,'' Baker recalled to NBC 5. They did anyway.
What followed was a five-year legal battle in which the city refused to pay for the $60,000-plus in property damage, forcing Baker to dip into her retirement savings just to make the home livable again.
With the help of the Institute for Justice, Baker took the city to court, arguing that government agents who destroy private property—regardless of motive—should be held financially accountable.
'We're trying to establish that even if the government is acting for a legitimate reason, they must compensate property owners for what they destroy,' said attorney Jeffrey Redfern.
The city previously offered a partial settlement, but Baker refused, pushing for full compensation and a broader legal precedent. Last week, a federal judge agreed and ordered McKinney to pay $59,656.69.
City officials told NBC 5 they are 'evaluating options for appealing the ruling.'
Baker, now retired and living on Social Security, says she fought not just for herself but for others who might one day find themselves in her position.
'It was disastrous for me, but what if it were a single mom with no savings? Someone has to stand up,' she said.
The ruling could signal a growing trend of courts reining in unchecked government immunity when innocent citizens bear the cost of public safety operations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Miami Herald
SALT income tax deduction takes key step forward on Senate deal
A much followed tax break improvement is inching toward becoming a reality. A proposed tweak to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction - capped at $10,000 since 2018 - could soon offer relief to taxpayers in high-tax states. If passed, the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill of America (OBBBA) would give taxpayers a temporary boost in their ability to deduct SALT payments, especially for those who've felt the sting of the cap since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) took effect. And as lawmakers inch toward a deal, taxpayers - and their accountants - are watching closely. Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash What is the SALT income tax deduction cap? Under the TCJA, the SALT deduction was capped at $10,000 annually - including the combined total of property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. That cap, still in place today, is set to expire at the end of 2025. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter But since its enactment, it has disproportionately affected residents in states with high property values and/or income tax rates. Think: New YorkCaliforniaNew JerseyConnecticutMassachusettsMarylandIllinois In these states, many middle-and upper-middle-income households have long paid more than $10,000 in state and local taxes. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement As a result, despite the higher standard deduction that was part of TCJA, some families have been unable to fully deduct those expenses on their federal tax returns-a costly outcome. Both the House and Senate versions of the OBBBA seek to expand the SALT deduction, but with key differences. In the House proposal, the cap would rise to $40,000 for married couples, phased out for households earning over $500,000. The new cap would last until 2034. Related: Social Security income tax deduction clears critical hurdle Not all lawmakers are on board. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), for instance, told Axios he was a "no" on a temporary deal. "I need $40K for my constituents, and it has to be $40K forever," he said. The Senate version takes a different approach. It proposes a temporary SALT cap increase from 2025 through 2029, followed by a return to the $10,000 cap: 2025: Cap rises to $40,0002026: Adjusted to $40,4002027–2029: Cap increases annually by 1%2030 and beyond: Cap returns to $10,000 For married individuals filing separately, these caps are halved. High-Income taxpayers face phase-down of SALT deduction The Senate plan includes a phase-down for high earners, starting in 2025. Here's how it works: The benefit phases down once your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds $500,000 (or $250,000 for married filing separately).The reduction equals 30% of the amount your MAGI exceeds the the SALT cap cannot fall below $10,000 - even for the wealthiest filers. This means high-income households would still see some benefit from the temporary cap hike, just not the full amount. "For a lot of people, this cap is the difference between taking the standard deduction and itemizing deductions," said Michael Lofley, a financial adviser with HBKS Wealth Advisors. "If they itemize, they now get some additional tax benefit for other deductions, like charitable giving or mortgage interest." Related: Medicare recipients face a growing problem While some taxpayers - particularly small business owners - have used pass-through entity taxes (PTETs) to bypass the cap, W-2 earners such as corporate executives don't have that option. For them, this proposal offers real financial relief. Standard deduction increases under Senate tax plan The Senate tax bill includes more than just SALT deduction relief. It also proposes permanent extensions of the TCJA's higher standard deduction amounts. And for the years 2025 through 2028, it adds an extra boost: $1,000 for single filers$1,500 for heads of household$2,000 for married couples filing jointly That means in 2026, the standard deduction could be: $16,000 for singles$24,000 for heads of household$32,000 for married joint filers After 2026, these amounts would adjust with inflation. Retirees also have reason to pay attention. The Senate bill includes a larger senior tax deduction - $6,000 per eligible filer aged 65 or older (up from $4,000 in the House bill). This enhanced deduction would apply through 2028 and would phase out for incomes above: $75,000 (single filers)$150,000 (married filing jointly) Before the TCJA, about 31% to 32% of taxpayers itemized deductions. But after the law took effect in 2018, that figure dropped significantly: 2018: 11% to 11.5%2020–2022: Just 9% to 10% If the SALT cap is temporarily expanded, even if the standard deduction increases, more taxpayers - especially in high-tax areas - may once again find it beneficial to itemize deductions on their federal tax returns. "If Congress meets President Trump's July 4th deadline for passing the final bill, taxpayers will soon be able to update their 2025 tax projections," says Jean-Luc Bourdon, CPA. "This could prompt some taxpayers to revise their estimated quarterly payments or tax withholdings for the remainder of the year." Related: Workers struggle with one big problem when they retire The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump Accounts are the savings solution America's parents need
Congress may soon deliver a little bundle of joy to expecting parents and parents-to-be. The House-passed 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' contains the seed of a new federal investment program that may blossom into opportunity and financial security for millions of American children in the future. Fiscal conservatives have reasons to get on board. President Trump has formally introduced his plan for the federal government to fund $1,000 in investment accounts for every child born over the next four years. The cash would be deposited into a private custodial account and grow tax-free until he or she reaches adulthood. Parents, churches, charities and employers can also contribute up to $5,000 a year to the account. At age 18, the young adult gains access to half of the funds to be used for college or skills training, to start a business, or even for a down payment on a home. Trump Accounts are a marked improvement from the baby bonuses floated last year. Most fundamentally, Trump Accounts reflect a shift in the purpose and outcomes of family-supporting policies. The downstream effects will be minor on the budget but major for the economy and society, such that these accounts should earn broad conservative support. This plan promotes saving as a virtue that every American can adopt from birth. Different from the yeoman's goal of turning around our declining birth rate, these investment accounts are future-focused. Trump Accounts would democratize investing through its inclusivity. Open to every U.S.-born child with parents who have Social Security numbers with work authorization, children of all income levels and stripes would have skin in the investment game. While about two out of three Americans currently own stock and retirement accounts, according to Gallup polling, they tend to be degree holders and higher earners. Only 38 percent of Hispanics, 52 percent of Blacks and 28 percent of those earning below $50,000 participate in the stock market. Trump Accounts would skyrocket market participation. Young Americans would also gain a lesson in financial stewardship. In a culture that thrives on living for the moment, a generation of children would reap the benefits of patience and delayed gratification. Many parents would rather a one-time $5,000 check or a tax refund bump. However, families are well cared for in Trump's big, beautiful bill. Lowered income tax rates are made permanent, and the doubled Child Tax Credit increased by $500 for the next few years. Additionally, 529 plans are expanded significantly to cover more out-of-pocket K-12 costs, on-the-job training and continuing education. Trump Accounts would complement 529 plans. Children from poor and working-class backgrounds with little means to invest in 529s would gain access to a government-funded seed account. Brad Gerstner of Invest America posited that, with just $750 of additional savings per year, these accounts would swell to $50,000 by age 18. By focusing on saving for the future, Trump Accounts blunt inflationary fears and shrink fiscal impacts. Vice President JD Vance proposed a $5,000 baby bonus as a candidate, which Trump supported. Based on the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics, there were about 3.6 million births in 2023. A $5,000 baby bonus would have cost roughly $18 billion a year, whereas Trump Accounts are not likely to exceed $3 billion annually. These accounts are also time-limited, from Jan. 1, 2025, to Jan. 1, 2029, although the accounts may be renewed. I sympathize with supporters of baby bonuses as a policy solution to reversing our declining fertility rates. Demographic changes of fewer babies and longer life expectancies are stressing our Social Security system. However, baby bonuses have been tried in other countries with mixed results at best. A few thousand dollars is not enough to lure willing adults to procreate. The cost of raising a child from birth to age 17 on average is about $297,000. Children are costly. I know; I have three of them. From cribs to diapers, prenatal vitamins to formula, and child care to sports teams, our expenses compound daily. I view Trump Accounts as a solution to a different problem: the affordability crisis. Young people feel priced out of generational milestones such as homeownership. Turning age 18 with meaningful savings would help younger people break into the housing market sooner. The funds could also serve as the capital to spur a new generation of entrepreneurs. When traditional bank loans are not an option for young or risky borrowers, funds from these Trump accounts could purchase tools and equipment, a vehicle, or supplies to get started with one's own endeavor. These future property owners and business owners will pay it forward through the fruits of their ingenuity and hard work. Some sort of family-supporting policy was guaranteed to be part of the big, beautiful bill. Investment accounts that spread the virtue of saving, democratize investing and promise future economic growth are a generational hand up. That is far better than a handout wrapped up in swaddling clothes. Patrice Onwuka is the director of Independent Women's Center for Economic Opportunity.
