0

(I'm not asking for personal legal advice, nor am I involved in this situation)

In a video posted to Instagram Reels (and on Reddit), a Seattle Police Department officer can be seen slashing the rear tire of a minivan after another officer instructs the driver to "Go! Go!" and gestures for the driver to proceed.

Given the difference in tire height at the start/end of the video and that a person asked this, I'm inclined to believe it was slashed (and not, say, chalk).

Why are they slashing the ti-

As Seattle is in Washington, USA, I'm specifically interested in that jurisdiction, although other locations are permissible too.

Would the vehicle owner have any legal recourse for compensation for their damages (the tire, presumably) against the officer? If so, what?

Or would there be no recourse due to qualified immunity

Improve this question
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

Given that they were in uniform, carrying out other police duties contemporaneously, slashing a tire without any basis for doing so would constitute a seizure of property without probable cause, in violation of the 4th Amendment (as incorporated against state and local governments via the 14th Amendment's due process clause). This would provide a basis for a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officer in question for an intentional violation of a constitutional right.

While some violations of constitutional rights are not "well-established" constitutional rights for which qualified immunity would provide protection, the duty to refrain from intentionally damaging a person's property without having any justification for doing so, would likely not be barred by qualified immunity and would be considered a "well-established" constitutional right.

Prevailing in a 1983 lawsuit would result in an award of compensatory damages (possibly including non-economic damages), at least, plus attorneys fees and out of pocket litigation costs. I don't recall if punitive damages would be available in this context.

In the alternative, if the person sued argued that they were not acting under color of state law despite wearing a uniform and being on duty as a police officer involved in some sort of traffic stop, the victim could sue the person who slashed their tires for "conversion" and seek money damages under that common law tort. A conversion action would result in an award of economic, non-economic, and punitive damages, and the out of pocket costs of litigation, but not attorney fees. But, in context, an argument that this action was not under color of state law would be a hard sell.

Typically, 1983 actions are filed in federal court since they arise from a federal cause of action.

The police department that employed the officer who slashed the tire would probably not have liability as one would have to show that the department had a policy of slashing people's tires for no reason, that it almost surely did not have.

Another defense of the police officer would be to concoct a plausible justification for the action. For example, if the officer slashing the tire testified that an informant told him that there were warrants out for the arrest of a rear seat passenger who was about to get away.

Improve this answer
3
  • There might also be a union contract and municipal insurance that affect what is done, but these are specific to the the time and city.
    – David Smith
    Commented Mar 7 at 3:16
  • Wouldn't a criminal indictment for criminal mischief also be appropriate? I.e: intentional destruction of the property of another without justifiable cause
    – Anthony
    Commented Mar 8 at 1:39
  • @Anthony It might be, but historically, getting the criminal justice system to hold bad cops accountable has been virtually impossible. It requires the help of a prosecutor's office that is deeply dependent upon a usually unionized law enforcement community in the vast majority of the DA's work. Since the George Floyd incident, more cops have been held accountable that way, but it remains an unreliable exception to the rule and would probably be pretty futile to resort to in the OP case. Most DAs won't go there unless someone has been murdered or raped or the cops have stolen lots of money.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Mar 8 at 1:41
-4

Would a person have any recourse if a cop slashes their tires out of the blue for no reason?

No, that would not be the use of a police power. The officer would be acting in a personal capacity, not as a LEO, and would be personally liable.

But I have no idea why you asked the headline question in relation to that video because it doesn’t show the LEO acting “out of the blue for no reason”. It shows them acting as part of an overarching police operation, so the officer clearly had a reason. I don’t know what that reason was but that really doesn’t matter - the point is that the tyre slashing was in the course of police work.

As such, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies: unless what was done was violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known", the officer is not liable. The courts have held that there is no right that protects property damaged in the course of police work.

Similarly, the state is not liable due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Improve this answer
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Mar 5 at 7:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .