This Innocent Woman Is on the Hook for Thousands After a SWAT Team Destroyed Her Home

Published

2 years ago

December 21, 2023

admin

In June of 2022, law enforcement arrived at a modest home on East Calvert Street in South Bend, Indiana. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades into the house, launched flash-bangs through the front door, smashed windows, destroyed the security cameras, punched holes in the walls, ripped a panel and fan from the bathroom wall and ceiling, ransacked and tossed furniture, snatched curtains down, and broke a mirror and various storage containers. The tear gas bombs left openings in the walls, floors, and ceiling. Shattered glass lay strewn across the interior, and a litany of personal belongingsfrom clothing, beds, and electronics to childhood drawings and family photoswere ruined.

Police had their sights set on a man named John Parnell Thomas, then a fugitive, who is now behind bars. But law enforcement didn’t apprehend Thomas at the residence on East Calvert, as he did not own the home, did not have any relationship with its owners, and had never been there.

The actual owner, Amy Hadley, was not a suspect in law enforcement’s investigation. She was, in some sense, punished anyway, as the government left her to pick up the tab after officers dismantled and wrecked much of her home.

A faulty investigation led police to Hadley’s house. An officer with St. Joseph County attempted to locate Thomas via Facebook, concluding erroneously that he was accessing social media from the IP address tied to the Hadley residence.

He was not.

On June 10, 2022, upon surrounding the house, police ordered those inside to exit. Hadley’s son, Noahwho was 15 years old at the timewas the only one home; he came out with his hands up as instructed. Police immediately conceded on the body camera footage that he was not who they were looking for. They placed him in double handcuffs, put him in a caged squad car, and took him to the police station anyway.

A neighbor called Hadley to let her know something dire appeared to be happening outside her home, prompting her to return to the residence. She told law enforcement that Thomas was not inside and that her security cameras, which would be destroyed soon after, would have alerted her if a stranger had forced his way in. A South Bend SWAT team, along with backup from the St. Joseph Police Department, proceeded forthwith. Over 30 officers were dispatched to Hadley’s home.

The result forced Hadley and her son to sleep in her car for several nights as the toxic fumes lingered, while her daughter, Kayla, stayed elsewhere until the space was safe to live in again.

Hadley, who is employed as a medical assistant, does not dispute that police had a valid warrant and a right to search her property. What she does dispute, however, is that the government can leave her to shoulder the financial burden of their mistake. After contacting the South Bend Police Department, the St. Joseph County Police Department, and St. Joseph County, she received a mixture of demurrals and radio silence, according to a lawsuit recently filed in the St. Joseph County Circuit Court.

A year and a half post-raid, those agencies have paid her nothing. Her home insurance helped her in part but declined to pay the full amount, which totaled at least $16,000 in damages, per her suit, leaving her thousands of dollars in the hole.

It’s not the first time the government has destroyed an innocent person’s property and left them to pick up the pieces, both literally and figuratively. Hadley’s experience once again requires that we answer the following: When law enforcement wrecks someone’s house or business in pursuit of public safety, who should bear the cost?

Carlos Pena, a small business owner in Southern California, recently filed a suit that probes the same question, although his attorneys say the answer is clear. In August 2022, about two months after the raid on Hadley’s house, a Los Angeles SWAT team threw over 30 tear gas canisters into Pena’s print shop while attempting to catch a fugitive who had forcefully ejected Pena and barricaded himself inside. His inventory and most of his equipment were ruined, costing him about $60,000 in damages and thousands in revenue from lost clients. After building his business, NoHo Printing & Graphics, for over three decades, he now operates at a much-constrained capacity out of his garage.

Like many policies, Pena’s insurance told him they were not responsible for damage caused by the government. But Los Angeles has, at different times, ignored him or told him they are not liable, according to his lawsuit , which was filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Whether or not such victims are entitled to relief comes down to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which promises that people are entitled to “just compensation” when their property is usurped, or in this case destroyed, for public use. But various jurisdictions have been able to dance around that thanks to some federal jurisprudence which has held that actions taken under “police powers” are exempt from the pledge in the Takings Clause. “Apprehending a dangerous fugitive is in the public interest, and ‘in all fairness and justice,’ the cost of apprehending such fugitives should be borne by the public as a whole,” says Hadley’s suit, “not by an unlucky and innocent property owner whose property is put to a public use to serve the public’s interest.”

Another plaintiff, Vicki Baker, sued the city of McKinney, Texas, in 2021 after a local SWAT team caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage to her home and rendered her daughter’s dog deaf and blind. Again, a fugitive had barricaded himself inside; again, Baker was not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing; again, her insurance declined to pay. When she sought assistance from the government, they told her they weren’t liable and that she didn’t meet the definition of a “victim.” “I’ve lost everything,” Baker, in her 70s and struggling with cancer, told me shortly after filing her suit .

Following a lengthy court battle, a federal judge allowed her to proceed before a jury, characterizing the law that threatened to block her suit as “untenable.” That jury awarded her about $60,000 in June 2022. And then in October of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that, somewhat begrudgingly, ruling that current precedent foreclosed relief on the basis that police acted by “necessity during an active emergency.”

“For future victims, [this] would mean that you’re probably out of luck under the federal Constitution from the 5th Circuit, unless this case gets reversed,” Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney for the Institute for Justice which represents Baker, told me in October. “It’s a pretty big deal.” Fortunately for Baker, he added, the jury’s award should survive under the Texas Constitution, as opposed to the U.S. Constitutionalthough she only got that judgment after government stonewalling and a protracted court battle, which not everyone has the time and resources to finish.

As for Hadley, it remains unclear if she will receive compensation after the government acted on its error-prone investigation and left her home a shell of what it once was. But one thing is almost certain: There will be more innocent people like her in the future whose lives are upended by the state, only to be told that’s just their tough luck.

Politics

Comeback kid: Rachel Reeves’s revival plan

Published

3 hours ago

July 14, 2025

admin

Comeback kid: Rachel Reeves's revival plan

👉Listen to Politics At Sam And Anne’s on your podcast app👈

The chancellor is back out on the road to start the government’s re-launch week, ahead of the parliamentary recess.

In today’s episode, Sky News’ Sam Coates and Politico’s Anne McElvoy explain how comments on a proposed wealth tax by Rachel Reeves’s cabinet colleagues may have already put her in a tricky situation.

Elsewhere, Buckingham Palace has confirmed that Windsor Castle will host US President Donald Trump for a second unprecedented state visit in September.

UK

Southend Airport remains closed after ‘fireball’ plane crash

Published

3 hours ago

July 14, 2025

admin

Southend Airport remains closed after 'fireball' plane crash

Southend Airport has been closed until further notice after a small plane crashed – as video footage emerged showing the aftermath of a huge fireball.

Images posted online showed large flames and a cloud of black smoke following the incident on Sunday afternoon.

Essex Police said it responded to “reports of a collision involving one 12-metre plane” shortly before 4pm.

“We are working with all emergency services at the scene now and that work will be ongoing for several hours,” the statement said.

“We would please ask the public to avoid this area where possible while this work continues.”

Southend Airport said it would be “closed until further notice” due to the “serious incident”.

“We ask that any passengers due to travel (on Monday) via London Southend Airport contact their airline for information and advice,” it added.

Zeusch Aviation, based at Lelystad Airport in the Netherlands, confirmed its SUZ1 flight had been “involved in an accident” at the airport and its thoughts were with “everyone who has been affected”.

It has been reported that the plane involved in the incident is a Beech B200 Super King Air.

According to flight-tracking service Flightradar, it took off at 3.48pm and was bound for Lelystad, a city in the Netherlands.

Pilots ‘waved’ to families watching planes

One man, who was at the airport with his wife and children, told Sky News the plane crashed within seconds of taking off.

John Johnson said the pilots “waved” at his family as they taxied the aircraft.

“We all waved [back] at them,” he continued. “They carried on taxiing to their take-off point and turned around.

“Then they throttled up the engines and passed by us. The aircraft took off and within a few seconds it had a steep bank angle to its left.”

The aircraft then “almost seemed to invert and unfortunately crashed,” he said. “There was a large fireball.”

‘Airport was in lockdown’

Wren Stranix, 16, from Woodbridge in Suffolk, was in another aircraft waiting to take off for Newquay, Cornwall, with her family and boyfriend when the plane came down.

They watched from their aircraft as the emergency services arrived and were not able to leave their seats.

“The flight attendant didn’t know what was going on,” she told Sky News. “They said the plane had exploded and they didn’t know if it was safe or not. The airport was in lockdown.”

They were eventually allowed back in the terminal to wait before all flights were cancelled.

Southend Airport said the incident involved “a general aviation aircraft”.

After the incident, EasyJet – one of just a few airlines that uses the airport – said all of its remaining flights to and from Southend had been “diverted to alternative airports or are no longer able to operate”.

The airline said it has contacted customers who were due to travel on Sunday. Anyone due to fly on Monday should check online for up-to-date information, it added.

Essex County Fire and Rescue Service said four crews, along with off-road vehicles, have attended the scene.

The East of England Ambulance Service said four ambulances, four hazardous area response team vehicles and an air ambulance had been sent to the incident.

David Burton-Sampson, the MP for Southend West and Leigh, asked people to keep away from the area and “allow the emergency services to do their work” in a post on social media.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said she was “monitoring the situation closely and receiving regular updates”.

Essex Police have set up a dedicated public portal and phone line where people can contact them about the crash at https://esxpol.uk/LIbaz and on 0800 0961011.

Chief Superintendent Morgan Cronin said: “In these very early stages it is vital we gather the information we need, and continue supporting the people of Essex.”

He added: “We are working closely with all at the scene, as well as the Air Accident Investigation Branch, to establish what has happened today and why.”

Environment

Honda’s super low-cost electric motorcycle revealed in new patent images

Published

3 hours ago

July 14, 2025

admin

Honda's super low-cost electric motorcycle revealed in new patent images

Honda’s patent filings offer a clear glimpse into the company’s plans for an ultra-affordable electric motorcycle, integrating a proven chassis with a simple electric powertrain. It’s a clear glimpse into how the world’s most prolific motorcycle maker plans to challenge the nascent electric motorcycle market.

The filings in Honda’s new patent show a bike built around the familiar platform of the Honda Shine 100, a best-selling commuter in India, reimagined in electric form for a cost-effective future of urban mobility.

According to Cycle World’s Ben Purvis, Honda’s patent sketches outline a design that repurposes the Shine’s sturdy frame and chassis mounting points to house an electric motor and compact battery setup. Positioned where the engine once sat, a mid-motor drives the rear wheel via a single-speed reduction gear and chain – mirroring the essentials of the original gasoline-powered commuter bike.

Instead of a traditional fuel tank, the design features two lithium-ion battery packs, angled forward on either side of the spine frame and fitting neatly into the existing geometry.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

What makes the bike revealed in this patent even more interesting isn’t just its clever packaging, but rather the platform. By leveraging the proven Shine chassis, Honda can significantly cut development costs, manufacturing complexity, and market price. That’s a big statement given that surviving in price-sensitive markets like India demands simplicity and reliability. And by piggybacking off a proven platform, Honda can dramatically reduce the time to market from the time the boardroom bigwigs give the project the final green light.

Honda’s patent images show an electric motorcycle built on the same platform as the Honda Shine 100

The design still seems to feature styling that would be fairly consistent with the Shine 100, even down to a gas cap-like circular protrusion likely on top of a faux-tank. Some electric motorcycles in the past have used this location to hide a charging port, keeping similar form and function to outdated fuel tanks and fill ports, though it’s not clear if that is Honda’s intention.

It’s not clear what power level Honda could be targeting, but the Shine bike from which Honda’s creation draws its design inspiration could provide some clues. The Honda Shine 100 features a 99cc engine that provides around 7.3 horsepower (around 5.5 kW) and has a top speed of 85 km/h (53 mph), solidly planting it in the commuter segment of motorcycles.

The electric motorcycle in Honda’s design would be unlikely to target much higher performance as it would drastically increase the required battery capacity, and thus similar speeds of around 80-85 km/h (50-53 mph) would seem likely.

There also appears to be no active cooling, which would also limit the amount of power that Honda would be likely to draw continuously. The patent describes a channel formed by the two battery packs, leading to the speed controller and creating ducted cooling that pulls heat out of the batteries and electronics without drawing extra power.

Honda hasn’t released a final design, but I ask AI to create one based on the patent images. I’d ride that!

This emerging design is just one piece of Honda’s broader electric two-wheeler strategy. Their entry-level EM1 e: and Activa e: scooters launched with mobile battery packs and budget-friendly pricing. Meanwhile, high-tech concepts continually push the envelope. But this Shine-based bike aims squarely at the heart of mainstream affordability – a move likely to resonate with millions of new electric riders in developing regions like India where traditionally-styled small-dsiplacement motorcycles reign supreme.

Honda hasn’t revealed a timeline or pricing yet, but Honda’s patents offer real hope to fans of the brand’s electric efforts. If scaled effectively, this could be the first truly mass-market electric motorcycle from a major OEM, with a sticker price likely far below the $5,000 mark usually seen as a floor for commuter electric motorcycles from major manufacturers. That would also dramatically undercut models from brands like Zero or Harley-Davidson’s LiveWire, even as those brands rush to bring their own lower-cost models to market.

Electrek’s Take

Honda’s patent reveals a clever, no-frills EV designed to democratize electric two-wheeling, especially in developing markets that are even more price-sensitive than Western electric motorcycle customers.

Using a trusted frame, simple electric drive, and passive cooling, I’d say it definitely prioritizes cost over complexity, which is exactly what urban commuters need. If Honda can bring this to market, it would not just add another electric bike to the mix… it could create a new baseline for affordability in affordable electric mobility. Now we’re just waiting for the rubber to hit the road!

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.