Hey folks, can I get an opinion on this?

[Trooper224]

If the vehicles are abandoned, causing a hazard or some kind of interference, I don't see how deflating the tires would help in their removal. Ever since we stepped through the looking glass there seems to be enough bad decision making to go around on all sides.

I really can't see how anyone thought this would lead to a positive outcome.

[tjmitchem]

Thanks for posting that article, I appreciate it.

I’m not entirely sure the explanation holds up, since a star tribune reporter’s car was also "disabled," but at least there’s a discussion happening.

I’m personally still shaking my head on this. Maybe because I was enough of a juvenile miscreant in middle school and early HS to know conclusively that if you’re slashing tires on parked cars CONUS, you’re probably on the wrong side of the law.

I found it interesting that the Sheriff claimed responsibility for the two cars on the bridge, and only those two cars. Other than that, this one goes in the "forget about it unless I hear something else" bucket.

I'll admit to being biased, though. Having a deputy as the first responder to your wife's panicked 911 call (medical emergency), and contributing significantly to saving your life, has an effect. I'm still trying to figure out how he showed up less than 40 seconds after she called. Was he parked outside my damned house or something?

[wilco423]

I know from MPD friends that they had a lot of cars take runs at cops on foot during the riots in this area. Wouldn’t be surprised if the tire slashing was as much an on-site reaction to being almost run down several times as it was an intel led thing.

ETA: they worked reeeaaaaly hard to not shoot anyone, knowing it would have gotten WAY worse if they had.

[RJflyer]

This one really has me scratching my head. I'm having a hard time seeing their justification as reasonable. Even given the benefit of the doubt...if the order was simply "to disable illegally abandoned vehicles via tire deflation" then common sense would indicate there are less destructive ways to deflate a tire.

But I can also see how common sense isn't very common in the middle of a prolonged period of rioting and general lawlessness. Even in my area, I've seen video of a cop from a well-respected agency acting like an ass once the protests got a little out of hand. I've learned that a key element of this job is recognizing when one our own is getting overly heated/emotional and needs to be pulled aside for a quick reset.

[john c]

None of that explanation makes sense to me nor do I see a rise to probable cause. I suspect they'd lose any lawsuit directed their way unless there's a lot more that's not in that article or the one it links to. Saying cars were used as weapons and some cars that were stopped were stolen is probably true and definitely lets you deal with those particular cars. It doesn't allow you to flatten tires on cars in parking lots and I don't see how you stretch that enough to cars on a street, either. If they are hampering police/fire/ems response, flattening the tires isn't going to fix that.

My state's case law allow for the destruction of property by law enforcement during the course of their duties. Basically, it needs to be reasonable, minimal, and in the course of a legitimate law enforcement action. Property owners have no standing to sue, unless it was capricious or not in the course of duty. What typically happens in my city is that homeowner's fences and gates are broken during perimeters. The city typically declines to pay out on those claims. There isn't a probable cause test, since it's not directed at a person, nor is it a "taking". It's a reasonableness test.

Eugene Vololk refers to a Federal court case in the 10th Circuit that supports immunity for agency that meet the criteria: https://reason.com/2019/10/31/federa...ent-operation/

Considering that the intrusion was minimal (slashed tires) and nothing bad came of disable cars (like being burned), and the order to do so was lawful, I don't think the owners have much of a standing to sue or demand compensation. With the cost of the tires being low, my guess is that the city/county/state would likely just pay the claim of whatever new tires cost rather than fight the lawsuits.

I recognize that regional differences may come into play in this argument. Some parts of the country take property very seriously. Other parts tend not to worry about it much; the owner's insurance will pay out, or the city, however the chips may fall.

[BehindBlueI's]

My state's case law allow for the destruction of property by law enforcement during the course of their duties. Basically, it needs to be reasonable, minimal, and in the course of a legitimate law enforcement action. Property owners have no standing to sue, unless it was capricious or not in the course of duty. What typically happens in my city is that homeowner's fences and gates are broken during perimeters. The city typically declines to pay out on those claims. There isn't a probable cause test, since it's not directed at a person, nor is it a "taking". It's a reasonableness test.

Eugene Vololk refers to a Federal court case in the 10th Circuit that supports immunity for agency that meet the criteria: https://reason.com/2019/10/31/federa...ent-operation/

Considering that the intrusion was minimal (slashed tires) and nothing bad came of disable cars (like being burned), and the order to do so was lawful, I don't think the owners have much of a standing to sue or demand compensation. With the cost of the tires being low, my guess is that the city/county/state would likely just pay the claim of whatever new tires cost rather than fight the lawsuits.

I recognize that regional differences may come into play in this argument. Some parts of the country take property very seriously. Other parts tend not to worry about it much; the owner's insurance will pay out, or the city, however the chips may fall.

What's the "legitimate law enforcement action" here?

How is it "reasonable" to slash the tires of cars in a parking lot?

[john c]

What's the "legitimate law enforcement action" here?

How is it "reasonable" to slash the tires of cars in a parking lot?

Taking the Sheriff's statements at face value, trying to immobilize possibly stolen vehicles for recovery and prevent them from being used as weapons (when this was otherwise happening, not a fanciful what-if) appears to serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

It seems reasonable to cause minor damage (say $800-$2000 worth) to serve this purpose, when other less intrusive methods, like towing, were not available. What I'm saying is that burning the cars, or cranking rounds into the engine block to prevent them being used as weapons would increase the intrusion, and strain the reasonableness test. I think the command staff or officers would have to articulate a more pressing need to justify that level of intrusion.

In my area, I think this order would be objectively reasonable. The worst case is that city picks up the tab. There are no real damages to assess, other than the replacement tires. Another poster correctly pointed out that cutting the tire stems changes the intrusion from $800 to $80, which is even easier to articulate.

[BehindBlueI's]

Taking the Sheriff's statements at face value, trying to immobilize possibly stolen vehicles for recovery and prevent them from being used as weapons (when this was otherwise happening, not a fanciful what-if) appears to serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

It seems reasonable to cause minor damage (say $800-$2000 worth) to serve this purpose, when other less intrusive methods, like towing, were not available. What I'm saying is that burning the cars, or cranking rounds into the engine block to prevent them being used as weapons would increase the intrusion, and strain the reasonableness test. I think the command staff or officers would have to articulate a more pressing need to justify that level of intrusion.

In my area, I think this order would be objectively reasonable. The worst case is that city picks up the tab. There are no real damages to assess, other than the replacement tires. Another poster correctly pointed out that cutting the tire stems changes the intrusion from $800 to $80, which is even easier to articulate.

We'll have to disagree on the reasonableness of cutting tires in a parking lot without some articulated suspicion those particular cars were going to be used as weapons or were stolen. There's no blanket ability to disable any car in the area because some might be used as weapons. Extrapolate what all that would allow.

The sheriff disavowed any involvement with the parking lot tire slashing and stated the ones on the bridge were slashed to "disable illegally abandoned vehicles via tire deflation" because "Life safety issues were a concern due to the previous two days of civil unrest in the City of Minneapolis, as rioters had used unoccupied vehicles as weapons."

Still looks like overreach to me. I get we aren't liable for knocking boards off a fence on a track or kicking in a door when there's someone calling for help inside. I don't think we can damage property just because similar property was misused and there's nothing tying the specific property to a similar act.

[Hambo]

I'm with BBI on this. For cars parked in a lot of on the streets, "possibly stolen" and "could be" fail the reasonable test to me.

[Erick Gelhaus]

As reported, I'm not seeing a justification.