[tomder55]

Police power is an inherent power of the state to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare except where legally prohibited. In the US it is covered by the 10th amendment.

The taking clause of the 5th amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Mollie Slaybaugh’s adult son James Jackson Conn asked if he could come visit her at her Smyrna, Tennessee. Being the good mom she gladly agreed. After his arrival she noticed outside of her home a large police presence surrounding her home. She went outside to find out what was happening and was greeted by an officer with gun drawn. She was informed that Conn was wanted for the murder of a Deputy Sheriff .

She offered to help them get her son out of the house. They refused and told her to leave. She left and went to her daughter's house . Conn refused to leave.

The next day a SWAT team broke the door and tossed a bunch of smoke grenades into the home .He was arrested . He is charged with the murder of Savanna Puckett ;and prosecutors want the death penalty . If guilty I hope he fries .

Death penalty sought for man accused of killing Deputy Savanna Puckett (tennessean.com)

But this is not about him.
When the SWAT team entered the home ,they did about $70,000 in damage.
Mollie and her husband Michael filed with their insurance for the damage . But the insurance does not cover acts of the government. They also got no relief from the local governments involved .

Out of options ;they filed a Federal lawsuit due to violations of the 'taking clause'. Their suit was thrown out by the district court saying 'police powers' are exempt from the 'taking clause'.

The 6th Circus court will review an appeal.

On one hand ;the county argues that considering collateral damage could restrain police from doing what is necessary. On the other hand ;knowing that if damaging property is truly necessary for police to do their job they would be less restrained knowing property owners will get compensation. At the same time ;police may be less inclined to do property damage if it is not necessary .

This is not a single incident . There are many cases current and in the past where this issue comes into play.

Appeals court declines to rehear case related to 'destroyed' home | wfaa.com

Print shop owner sues after LAPD allegedly damages shop during raid - The Washington Post

Sometimes there are unintended consequences resulting from government action. A Texas farmer has had to deal with floods ever since the state constructed a concrete barrier along a nearby highway.
SCOTUS sided with him .

Supreme Court: Landowner can sue Texas for flood damage | The Texas Tribune

But the question at hand involving police action is trickier because law enforcement is a public good. Leo Lech's home was destroyed in SWAT raid after a shoplifter broke into his home . He was denied compensation and SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

You have to go back to 1887 to find a SCOTUS review.

"When the state acts to preserve the 'safety of the public,' the state 'is not, and, consistent with the existence and safety of organized society, cannot be, burdened with the condition that the state must compensate [affected property owners] for pecuniary losses they may sustain' in the process."

Mugler v. Kansas - Wikipedia

But in that case there was illegal activity being done by the defendant.