4 ms·

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 de

• elliekelly 6y ago
  But from what I understand the department doesn't have the allegedly stolen property - the officers themselves do. Which is why the (innocent, I might add) individuals are left without recourse for action undertaken by government agents.
  • Enginerrrd 6y ago
    Certainly in many other contexts, the parent organization has been found responsible for negligent or illegal behavior by their employee for civil damages. That's one of the reasons for drug testing and background checks.
• Talanes 6y ago
  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.
  • nybble41 6y ago
    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.