479 P.3d 656
Wash.2021Background
- Tacoma police obtained a warrant for apartment B1 based on a confidential informant and a records search; officer’s Accurint check identified Kathleen Mancini as the B1 resident and Logstrom as unrelated to B1.
- At 9:45 a.m. officers knocked, waited ~20–30 seconds, then forcibly breached B1 with a battering ram, guns drawn; Logstrom lived in a different building (A1).
- Officers handcuffed Mancini in her nightgown, took her outside barefoot, detained her for several minutes before uncuffing her and acknowledging the wrong apartment; they later obtained consent at A1 and found marijuana plants.
- Mancini sued the City for negligence and intentional torts; a jury found the City negligent and awarded $250,000; the Court of Appeals reversed, treating Mancini’s trial theory as impermissible "negligent investigation."
- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that police owe an ordinary duty of reasonable care when executing a search warrant and that substantial evidence supported the jury’s negligence verdict; the Court did not decide whether negligent-investigation is a cognizable tort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do police owe a duty of reasonable care when executing a search warrant? | Mancini: yes; officers must exercise ordinary care while on private property and when detaining occupants. | City: no special immunity or different standard; but emphasized claim was negligent investigation rather than execution. | Yes. Police owe the ordinary tort duty of reasonable care in executing warrants. |
| Did sovereign immunity or the public-duty doctrine bar Mancini’s negligence claim? | Mancini: no; officers directly caused harm so duty ran to her individually. | City: governmental immunities/public-duty limits the claim. | No. Discretionary immunity and public-duty doctrine do not bar a negligence claim for affirmative misfeasance in a warrant execution. |
| Was Mancini’s negligence claim improperly characterized as non-cognizable negligent investigation? | Mancini: she pleaded general negligence in detention/execution; trial focused on multiple operational failures. | City: evidence showed the claim at trial was negligent investigation, which Washington generally does not recognize. | Court did not resolve existence of negligent-investigation tort; held plaintiff pleaded and was tried on general negligence and jury could rely on execution/detention failures. |
| Was the trial court’s denial of CR 50 (directed verdict) proper on the negligence claim? | Mancini: record contained substantial evidence of unreasonable entry, delay in recognizing wrong apartment, and unreasonable detention. | City: plaintiff’s evidence emphasized investigation failures and her own expert said execution tactics were proper. | Yes. Viewing evidence favorably to Mancini, substantial evidence supported a jury finding that officers breached duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 193 Wn.2d 537 (Wash. 2019) (law enforcement owes ordinary duty to refrain from causing foreseeable harm in interactions)
- Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wn.2d 582 (Wash. 1983) (discretionary governmental immunity is narrow; operational investigative acts are not protected)
- Brutsche v. City of Kent, 164 Wn.2d 664 (Wash. 2008) (officers executing a warrant must avoid unreasonable conduct or they exceed their privilege; trespass/negligence context)
- Stalter v. State, 151 Wn.2d 148 (Wash. 2004) (jailers owe duty to release detainee once they know or should know confinement is unwarranted)
- Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726 (Wash. 1996) (municipal negligence measured by surrounding circumstances and ordinary care standard)
- Goldsby v. Stewart, 158 Wash. 39 (Wash. 1930) (in executing a search warrant officers should do no unnecessary damage to property)