Hey folks, can I get an opinion on this?

[Torsius]

Though it is part of the rationale for reasonable suspicion to detain persons, I’m pretty sure the courts are fans of “specific and articulable facts.” I’m failing to see how these specific vehicles posed such a danger.

Can a peace officer temporarily deprive a detained person of a baseball bat for everyone’s safety? Yes, of course. Can officers round up all of the bats at little league practice “just in case?” Of course not.

Also, when the word “possibly” is doing the heavy lifting in your explanation, you are on shaky ground.

[Lost River]

Another thing that crossed my mind on this topic.

If a guys is in a rapidly evolving/dynamic situation and does not have any other way of disabling a vehicle other than flattening tires, he does not need to slash an expensive set of tires. Provided that he had a legitimate need to do so in the first place as I discussed earlier and is not doing something questionable or downright unacceptable/unethical/illegal.

Just cut the valve stem.

This accomplishes the same objective of letting the air out of the tires, and does not actually destroy the tires. Replacing valve stems at $10 a pop makes more sense than replacing tires at $200 or $300 a pop.

[Kukuforguns]

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.

I do not understand how you get the order was lawful. The propriety of orders is not determined by the person/entity issuing the order. The order must comply with the Constitution.

The fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Slashing tires certainly constitutes a seizure of the tires/vehicle (I could argue it also seriously impinges a person's freedom of movement and thus implicates a seizure of the person as well). And, recent SCOTUS case law confirms that vehicles are effects that fall within the scope of the 4th Amendment. So, we have a seizure of an effect. There was no probable cause that the vehicles were contraband and there was no warrant for their seizure. The only remaining way in which the seizure could comply with the 4th Amendment would be if slashing tires under the circumstances present could be characterized as reasonable. Like virtually every other person who has commented in this thread, I cannot accept this conduct as reasonable based on the facts known to me. Nor do I think a court would find this type of seizure reasonable.

If 4 tires are slashed on a car, we're looking at property damage of ~$1,000 per vehicle. That's not a negligible value. What was the purpose? If the justification is that the vehicles are illegally abandoned, the seizure (slashing tires) has no relation to the justification. If the justification is to prevent the vehicles from being used as a weapon, then there would need to be some reasonable belief that the seized vehicles were somehow likely to be used as a weapon. There is no explanation for this determination other than proximity to a riot. If this were sufficient justification, then police could seize all cars near a riot. No reasonable court is going to approve that standard.

I do not believe (based on the facts known to me) any order to slash tires was lawful. It appears facially unconstitutional.

[john c]

I do not understand how you get the order was lawful. The propriety of orders is not determined by the person/entity issuing the order. The order must comply with the Constitution.

The fourth amendment:


Slashing tires certainly constitutes a seizure of the tires/vehicle (I could argue it also seriously impinges a person's freedom of movement and thus implicates a seizure of the person as well). And, recent SCOTUS case law confirms that vehicles are effects that fall within the scope of the 4th Amendment. So, we have a seizure of an effect. There was no probable cause that the vehicles were contraband and there was no warrant for their seizure. The only remaining way in which the seizure could comply with the 4th Amendment would be if slashing tires under the circumstances present could be characterized as reasonable. Like virtually every other person who has commented in this thread, I cannot accept this conduct as reasonable based on the facts known to me. Nor do I think a court would find this type of seizure reasonable.

If 4 tires are slashed on a car, we're looking at property damage of ~$1,000 per vehicle. That's not a negligible value. What was the purpose? If the justification is that the vehicles are illegally abandoned, the seizure (slashing tires) has no relation to the justification. If the justification is to prevent the vehicles from being used as a weapon, then there would need to be some reasonable belief that the seized vehicles were somehow likely to be used as a weapon. There is no explanation for this determination other than proximity to a riot. If this were sufficient justification, then police could seize all cars near a riot. No reasonable court is going to approve that standard.

I do not believe (based on the facts known to me) any order to slash tires was lawful. It appears facially unconstitutional.

I think we're talking past each other a little bit. What I meant with respect to the lawful order is that the order to take the action was otherwise legal. IE, the order did not discriminate illegally or similar. The order to destroy the property is not presumptively illegal. I've been ordered to break windows and make entry to a house for a welfare check. That's legal and proper. The guy who's window I broke paid for both the broken window and board up crew that secured the house after I swept the house for anyone who might have needed help. (Before anyone gets alarmed, this was after plenty of knocking and announcing on all parts of the locked house)

Second, damaging the cars for a law enforcement purpose is not a taking or seizure under the 4th amendment. I refer to the article that I linked. Therefore, the 4th amendment likely wouldn't apply.

I agree that intrusion to the owners needs to be reasonable with the need in place. It's a balancing act. In the article, the officers basically totaled an expensive house in order to make an arrest. This was deemed justifiable, based on the requirement to affect an arrest. In this case, some cars were disabled, with minimal intrusion (the cars weren't in use). In some places, $1000 is a LOT of money, in others, it's less of an issue.

I don't think this is a probable cause issue, because there's no seizure in disabling the vehicle.

I agree that the reasons behind the action are somewhat weak. The potential use of the vehicles as weapons is vague, and also that "some" were stolen. However, during day 3 of a riot, with stolen and looted vehicles being used in crimes, this may have had more pertinence that in a normal law enforcement context. I think if an officer found a specific vehicle that was stolen, and wanted to disable it for later recovery, and no tow trucks were available, this would lean more towards reasonableness.

The question I have for the other posters is your questioning the reasonableness of the tire slashing the cost of the damage, or the tenuous connection (might be stolen or used as weapons) to a law enforcement purpose?

In the end, I don't think it matters much. I don't think the actions would be shocking to the court, so no damages would be awarded. The city would pay out for replacement tires and maybe some towing costs for the vehicles. This is probably the least of the fiscal worries of the city of Minneapolis with respect to the whole fiasco.

I definitely respect the differing opinions of others on this board. There's a continuum between "completely reasonable" to "hmmmm" to "unreasonable" and I fall slightly on the left of "hmmmm" on this one. Others fall on the other side. I think it reflects a police department on the brink desperately trying to restore order in tough circumstances.

[Cyberpunk1981]

John C since you feel it is reasonable, lets go further with what is reasonable. Had the police gone into a gun store and start destroying firearms inside the store as a preventative measure, would that be reasonable? Or if they destroyed property inside stores because some of the items in the store could be used to harm them or protestors? Chemicals, firearms, sporting goods, knives, or whatever. Would that have been reasonable?

[john c]

John C since you feel it is reasonable, lets go further with what is reasonable. Had the police gone into a gun store and start destroying firearms inside the store as a preventative measure, would that be reasonable? Or if they destroyed property inside stores because some of the items in the store could be used to harm them or protestors? Chemicals, firearms, sporting goods, knives, or whatever. Would that have been reasonable?

I want to point out that qualified immunity isn't what I think it is, it's what the courts have deemed it to be. Taking the facts of this case at face value, I do think that it fits. I'm open to being corrected by this. I really respect BBI's opinion, as a patrol sergeant with a lot of experience. I also appreciate Erick Gelhaus' and HCM's opinions, as well.

Note that courts have upheld qualified immunity in the previous case I linked to, and a case in Caldwell ID where a woman provided consent to search her house for her ex-boyfriend wanted on assault charges. The PD busted holes in the walls of the house and shot tear gas into every room, rendering the house unliveable and all contents unusable. The ex-boyfriend wasn't there, and the woman and her kids were homeless. The 9th Circuit (the most liberal in the country) found that the officers had qualified immunity and were not liable for destroying the house because the boyfriend "might" have been in there. The plaintiff in the case suffered real damages, by being made homeless.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib.../#32f3bbac78d2

Check out this podcast by Lehto's Law, which takes the negative view of qualified immunity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNnAB6YJGiA

Based on these data points where the courts have ruled the intrusions were subject to qualified immunity, I think there's a good chance that disabling vehicles in a minimally intrusive fashion would fall under qualified immunity.

[Cyberpunk1981]

I want to point out that qualified immunity isn't what I think it is, it's what the courts have deemed it to be. Taking the facts of this case at face value, I do think that it fits. I'm open to being corrected by this. I really respect BBI's opinion, as a patrol sergeant with a lot of experience. I also appreciate Erick Gelhaus' and HCM's opinions, as well.

Note that courts have upheld qualified immunity in the previous case I linked to, and a case in Caldwell ID where a woman provided consent to search her house for her ex-boyfriend wanted on assault charges. The PD busted holes in the walls of the house and shot tear gas into every room, rendering the house unliveable and all contents unusable. The ex-boyfriend wasn't there, and the woman and her kids were homeless. The 9th Circuit (the most liberal in the country) found that the officers had qualified immunity and were not liable for destroying the house because the boyfriend "might" have been in there. The plaintiff in the case suffered real damages, by being made homeless.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib.../#32f3bbac78d2

Check out this podcast by Lehto's Law, which takes the negative view of qualified immunity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNnAB6YJGiA

Based on these data points where the courts have ruled the intrusions were subject to qualified immunity, I think there's a good chance that disabling vehicles in a minimally intrusive fashion would fall under qualified immunity.

The thing is that they disabled vehicles for no apparent reason. I am familiar with qualified immunity and the concept but the fact is that they had no reason. It is not about whether they were justified in a court of law and had to explain their actions. As of right now they have not had to justify their actions in a court of law, just the court of public opinion.

You failed to address my post. Would you be OK with officers going into shops and destroying items in the shops and the property of the store owners because it may potentially be used to harm them or another person in the area? I support law enforcement very much but I don't see these actions as reasonable since the cars were not a threat in the parking lot. My point is that anything can potentially be used as a weapon, so would it be OK for them to start going into stores on the basis a vandal/criminal/protestor may enter the store and may potentially use inventory in the store as a weapon?

[john c]

The thing is that they disabled vehicles for no apparent reason. I am familiar with qualified immunity and the concept but the fact is that they had no reason. It is not about whether they were justified in a court of law and had to explain their actions. As of right now they have not had to justify their actions in a court of law, just the court of public opinion.

You failed to address my post. Would you be OK with officers going into shops and destroying items in the shops and the property of the store owners because it may potentially be used to harm them or another person in the area? I support law enforcement very much but I don't see these actions as reasonable since the cars were not a threat in the parking lot. My point is that anything can potentially be used as a weapon, so would it be OK for them to start going into stores on the basis a vandal/criminal/protestor may enter the store and may potentially use inventory in the store as a weapon?

I disagree that there was no apparent reason. The officers who slashed the tires did so on instructions from their chain of command. The chain of command articulated the ongoing threat of stolen vehicles threatening officers and the public. Is this vague? Yes. Is it enough? I think the officers who slashed the tires are in the clear; whether the city eats the cost, I think no. But I'm open to other points of view.

In the case you're suggesting, as in the one at hand, the destruction needs to be in the course of a law enforcement action. Absent any threat, however tangential, the answer is no.

But qualified immunity is a weird thing. This case, also out of the liberal 9th Circuit, stated that officers were not liable under qualified immunity for stealing property from a suspect that was seized under a valid warrant. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib.../#607c029d2877

So I take a pretty conservative view that damaging the property of others in the course of duty should be minimized and taken seriously, but the courts have consistently surprised me with rulings that protect officers from actions that, to me, would be hard to articulate.

To me it's not out of the question that if officers in Minneapolis had destroyed gunshop inventory under identical circumstances during the riots, the courts might cover them. Or might not. I really don't have an answer to that.

[Borderland]

Same here. They didn't even know if the owners were rioters, employees, unfortunate bastards who parked there because they car pool.

If there was a legal circumstance, they could have mitigated the damage by just cutting the valve stems instead of the tires.

I always wondered why people slashed tires. A good pair of dykes will do it a great job on a valve stem. Save your knife.

[olstyn]

I don't think this is a probable cause issue, because there's no seizure in disabling the vehicle.

I am not a lawyer or a LEO, so I'm definitely way outside of my lane here and just trying to learn, so please don't take this question as critical. How is disabling a vehicle not a seizure? It makes an expensive and tangible piece of property unusable by its owner for its normal purpose. From my non-lawyer, non-LEO perspective, that sounds a whole lot like a seizure, but perhaps I'm just not understanding the legal definition of that term...?