|
Police
Responsibility: Terms That By L. Michael Golden; June 2002 Police sometimes commandeer private property. We saw this in the movie “Speed”, when an unsuspecting commuter had his Jaguar thoroughly trashed by a zealous police officer. In the movie, the actor/police officer asked if the man had insurance. A ridiculous question, you might think. The police would have to pay for any damages they caused, right? It is the general rule that when the property of an innocent third party is taken, damaged or destroyed by police in the course of apprehending a suspect, the municipality should compensate the innocent party for the damages. See Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Ins. Co., 479 NW.2d 38, 23 A.L.R.5 954, rehearing en banc denied (1992) (police required to compensate for damage to home caused during apprehension of drug suspect); Wallace v. Atlantic City, 257 N.J. Super. 404, 608 A.2d 480 (1992) (police required to compensate for damage caused during no-knock search); Steele v. Houston, 603 S.W.2d 786 (1980) (police required to compensate for intentionally setting a home on fire to drive suspects out). Although these states have recognized the constitutional magnitude of the issue, Washington courts are not holding police to the same standard. They should be. The purpose of requiring compensation is simple. Police sometimes damage property without meaning to or without thinking, or out of necessity. Overzealous or angry officers may cause unnecessary damage. The innocent homeowner should not bear all the costs that result from protecting society from the suspect; the cost should be shared and the owner compensated. Since it is the police doing the taking the issues are of constitutional magnitude. We should not have to rely on personal insurance in these matters; the courts are our insurance. Aren’t they? We rely on the police to enforce the law, and we rely on the courts to hold the police accountable. When police damage private property, we should not need insurance; the courts should be our insurance. |
