Bachmann v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 694
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Erich and Mona Bachmann own a rental house in Desert Hot Springs, CA; a tenant left it vacant and a third party (Jose Castillo) used it as a hideout.
- On October 5, 2015 the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), assisted by the county sheriff, besieged and forcibly entered the house to arrest Castillo, allegedly using gunfire, smoke/tear gas, a battering ram, and a robot.
- Plaintiffs allege physical damage to fence, windows, doors, and interior; subsequent theft/vandalism further harmed the property.
- Plaintiffs filed an administrative tort claim (denied) and then sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause for inverse condemnation.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing the damage was an exercise of the police power (not a compensable taking) and that unlawful-police theories would sound in tort (outside this court’s jurisdiction).
- The court accepted plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true but dismissed: damage during law-enforcement activity was an exercise of the police power and not a Fifth Amendment taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damage to private real property caused by law-enforcement entry and arrest can constitute a Fifth Amendment taking | Bachmanns: damage and loss of value from the USMS raid amounted to a taking for public use requiring just compensation | U.S.: damage was an exercise of police power to enforce criminal law, not a public-use taking; if raid was unlawful, remedy is tort, not takings | Held: No taking. Damage was incidental to police power and not a compensable Fifth Amendment taking; dismissal granted |
| Whether owner innocence converts police-caused damage into a taking | Bachmanns: owner’s innocence should not bar compensation under the Takings Clause | U.S.: owner’s innocence does not change the police-power analysis; noncompensable | Held: Innocence does not convert police power damage into a taking |
| Whether this court should create a Penn Central–style balancing test for police-related property damage | Bachmanns: court should recognize a compensable taking and apply balancing factors | U.S.: creating such a test would improperly second-guess police and lacks Supreme Court warrant | Held: Court declines to create such a test; would be inappropriate without Supreme Court guidance |
| Whether plaintiffs’ remedy, if raid was unlawful, lies in this court | Bachmanns: seek relief under the Takings Clause; impliedly contest lawfulness | U.S.: unlawful-police claim is tort; Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over torts | Held: If framed as tort for unlawful action, plaintiffs must pursue administrative/district-court remedies; CFC resolves only takings claim and finds none |
Key Cases Cited
- AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir.) (seizure/retention of personalty in criminal investigation that later was damaged did not constitute a takings)
- Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) (distinguishing police power regulation/remedy from takings for public use)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor regulatory takings balancing approach)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (distinguishing categorical takings from permissible police power actions)
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974) (forfeiture of property used in violation of law is not necessarily a taking even for an innocent owner)
- Nat’l Bd. of Young Men’s Christian Ass’ns v. United States, 395 U.S. 85 (1969) (police power/enforcement can benefit both public and owner and may not be a taking)
- Seay v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 32 (2004) (damaged personalty seized and returned after investigation did not establish a taking)