zlacker

>>mnm1+(OP)
Just so we know what we're talking about, here is a description of the 13 Qualified Immunity cases that may get to the Supreme Court soon.

https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finall...

Sample:

Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. The court noted that while “the theft [of] personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.”

>>Burnin+2v
I don't get the logic. When executing a warrent is the 4th amendment the only law that must be followed? If I murder someone while executing a warrent, is it unclear whether I broke the law, because the court has never declared that murder violates the 4th amendment?

>>Button+dx
The theory is that the coins were legally seized, then illegally stolen by the police officer. So the crime is theft (and various other things relating to a police officer stealing from "the system", like abuse of office), but not an illegal seizure.

>>gowld+Vz
Ah but if the defendant is later found innocent or charges dropped, who is sued to recover the property? The police officer or the department. Presumably the department because deeper pockets etc.

>>antish+5C
The police department is also the party who was legally responsible for those goods at the time, so obviously the defendant's case would be against the police department. The department is the one who was wronged by the officer, so they are the ones who have cause against him personally.

>>Talane+qE
The defendants could make a reasonable case against both the officer who stole the property out of police custody and the police department that failed to protect it. The former for theft and failure to return the property to its owner, and the latter for negligence. I believe the term is "jointly and severally liable"?

The police department has its own separate claim against the officer, of course, for the costs they have incurred (separate from the value of the stolen property, which wasn't theirs to begin with) as a result of the officer's actions.