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.