So, ATOT- who should pay?

[jlee]

Clarification- repayment meaning the cost to repair the damage to the seat caused by the dog alerting on drug odor.

This isn't my "problem", let's say this is a "hypothetical situation".

Situation:

"Person A" "borrows" (read: uses without permission) a car.

"Person A" picks up "Person B".

The vehicle is stopped for a traffic violation.

"Person A" gives consent for "Officer A" to search the vehicle. "Officer A" requests that "Officer B" (K9 handler from a neighboring department) respond with a dog. No one objects to the search.

The K9 alerts on the car (most dogs have an "active" alert- i.e. scratching, biting, etc), specifically on the passenger seat where "Person B" was. K9 damages the seat (rips/tears).

"Person A" is arrested for driving without a license and transporting drugs (see below), and is also charged with unauthorized use of a propelled vehicle (misdemeanor).

A marijuana pipe is recovered and "Person B" is arrested for possession (was nearest to him).

Who should pay to repair the seat? The owner of the vehicle had no idea it was missing, as "Person A" took it without the owner's knowledge or consent. "Person A" consented to the search and drug paraphernalia was recovered in the immediate vicinity of "Person B". "Officer A" requested the search, and "Officer B"'s K9 damaged the vehicle.

Please keep opinions on consent searches, K9 searches, etc out of the thread...I'm looking for opinions on repayment, not on anything else.

 

[amdhunter]

EDIT: I re-read the post. The person who owns the car has to pay out of pocket, or go through insurance. Unfortunately the Police were given permission to search the car, which lets them off the hook for damage.

 

[SunnyD]

Repayment of what? It was consented search and seizure.

 

[Crono]

The thief ("Person A") should be the primary one paying. If he wants to go up the chain for resititution, thats his problem.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Repayment of what? It was consented search and seizure.

To fix the damage to the car caused by the K9's active alert on drug odor.

 

[EightySix Four]

Owner of the vehicle needs to report that Person A stole the vehicle. And person A needs to pay for the damage or get the shit kicked out of him.

 

[nace186]

So the officer does not have to verify if person A own the car or not before getting consent?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Officer B's department should pay for the seat. But Person A was stupid for not only taking the car, but consenting to search.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: nace186
So the officer does not have to verify if person A own the car or not before getting consent?

No- he has control of the vehicle and is able to give consent.

 

[slsmnaz]

Person B should be on the hook but the car's owner should hold person A responsible for the damages. Don't care where A finds the money but he should kick the crap out of B to get it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: JLee
Clarification- repayment meaning the cost to repair the damage to the seat caused by the dog alerting on drug odor.

This isn't my "problem", let's say this is a "hypothetical situation".

Situation:

"Person A" "borrows" (read: uses without permission) a car.

"Person A" picks up "Person B".

The vehicle is stopped for a traffic violation.

"Person A" gives consent for "Officer A" to search the vehicle. "Officer A" requests that "Officer B" (K9 handler from a neighboring department) respond with a dog. No one objects to the search.

The K9 alerts on the car (most dogs have an "active" alert- i.e. scratching, biting, etc), specifically on the passenger seat where "Person B" was. K9 damages the seat (rips/tears).

"Person A" is arrested for driving without a license and transporting drugs (see below), and is also charged with unauthorized use of a propelled vehicle (misdemeanor).

A marijuana pipe is recovered and "Person B" is arrested for possession (was nearest to him).

Who should pay to repair the seat? The owner of the vehicle had no idea it was missing, as "Person A" took it without the owner's knowledge or consent. "Person A" consented to the search and drug paraphernalia was recovered in the immediate vicinity of "Person B". "Officer A" requested the search, and "Officer B"'s K9 damaged the vehicle.

Please keep opinions on consent searches, K9 searches, etc out of the thread...I'm looking for opinions on repayment, not on anything else.

Person A as the driver is responsible for what happens in the car. The damage to the car was a direct result of Person A?s bad judgment.

 

[BoomerD]

Gonna agree that the owner has to pay for the damages...but should at least TRY to collect from the slimeball who took his/her car.

 

[tefleming]

Originally posted by: Crono
The thief ("Person A") should be the primary one paying. If he wants to go up the chain for resititution, thats his problem.

Yeah. This guy took the car, this guy is responsible for returning it in substantially the same condition.

 

[sactoking]

Who SHOULD pay? Person A. 'If not for' Person A stealing the car , none of it would have happened.

Who WILL pay? The vehicle owner. Unless the car was reported stolen AND Person A did not have regular access to the keys, it will be surmised that Person A had the vehicle with permission. The owner would presumably ask Persons A or B to pay, they will refuse, and the owner would have to sue. That's a lot to go through for something this "minor".

Neither Officer A nor Officer B are responsible nor will their departments pay. Since they were acting within the scope of their jobs, and did so in a responsible manner, they have immunity from liability.

 

[darkxshade]

Does person A know the owner of the vehicle? Are they friends? If the answer is yes then:

Person A should and will probably pay for it if he's not a total irresponsible douchebag.


If the answer is no then:

Person A should pay for it but the owner might end up paying for it himself.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
Does person A know the owner of the vehicle? Are they friends? If the answer is yes then:

Person A should and will probably pay for it if he's not a total irresponsible douchebag.


If the answer is no then:

Person A should pay for it but the owner might end up paying for it himself.

Yes, they know each other. The owner did not realize the vehicle was missing until officers showed up at the house. Person A has no license and shouldn't be driving at all. Hypothetically, of course.

 

[rivan]

Crappy situation, but the car's owner's insurance should cover it, assuming it's damage that occurred when the car was stolen (used without permission = stolen). The insurance company may or may not care about charges being filed.

MORALLY, Person A should be coughing up any repair money. On the rare occasion I borrow stuff from my friends/family, I make it a point to return that item in condition as good or better than I received it.

 

[Juddog]

Consent to search and seizure, thus person A gave away their rights and must pay.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Officer B's department should pay for the seat. But Person A was stupid for not only taking the car, but consenting to search.

I was thinking Officer A's department since that's the origin of the search request.

 

[Newbian]

I would make the dog pay but that's just me.

 

[darkxshade]

We will mostly agree that person A should pay but judging by his lifestyle of "borrowing" cars without permission and driving without a license, he does not seem the type who has money nor does he seem like the type who would take responsibilities and pay for damages. So now it's not about who should pay it, it's about who will pay it? And especially if the drugs belonged to the car owner plus the fact that he would let his car get "borrowed" so easily, he does not place much value in it and will ultimately not care to repair it at all if no one is going to pay for it.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

There are so many things wrong with this in so many ways....

Person A stole the vehicle legally speaking. Person A gives consent to a search. Person A doesn't have license.

Person B is at fault for the drugs.

If I was owner of that vehicle (unless there were other details we don't know about like Person A is their SO or something), I would report that person A stole the vehicle. In that situation Person A should pay for the damages.

Person B is at fault from a personal view though, because they were the ones carring drugs (or just a pipe... whatever).

The officers, and owner were all in the clear. They had no fault in this.

My views could change if the owner had an understanding with Person A they could use their car whenever, parent/child, etc.

 

[waggy]

Person A should

 

[sswingle]

Any small claims court would make person A pay. Even if the owner knew the car was being borrowed, it would be person A to pay.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Vehicle owner or his insurance (if damage is greater than deductible, and doesn't cause a leap in premium). However they should also be able to sue person A.

So ultimately Person A *should* pay...but I voted vehicle owner 'cause that's what'll happen.

I don't get how anyone would consider it either PD's responsibility.