When Can Police Take Over Your Car?

We've all seen it in the movies: a cop needs a vehicle, so they flag down a civilian, flash their badge, and commandeer the car. But is this legal? In the United States, the answer is yes—in certain circumstances. The legal doctrine that enables law enforcement to do this is called posse comitatus, a Latin phrase meaning force of the country. While California repealed its Posse Comitatus Act in 2019, many states have laws that make it a misdemeanour to refuse to aid a police officer. However, police officers rarely commandeer civilian vehicles, as they could be held liable for any damage and are usually well-equipped with their own vehicles and backup.

Citizens' obligation to comply with law enforcement

Citizens' obligations to comply with law enforcement requests vary depending on the jurisdiction. In many places, it is a misdemeanor offence to refuse aid to a police officer, which can include the use of your vehicle. For example, until 2019, California's Posse Comitatus Act of 1872 obliged citizens to comply with law enforcement officers' requests for help, which could include commandeering private vehicles. However, this law was repealed, and California citizens can now refuse to help a law enforcement officer without facing charges or fines.

In other states, legal precedents and court rulings have supported the obligation to aid a police officer in an arrest, which can extend to the use of personal property. For instance, a New York state court ruled that a taxi was analogous to a "horse" mentioned in the 1285 Statute of Winchester, which required citizens to keep appropriate instruments, such as a "horse", for criminal pursuit.

While citizens may have an obligation to comply with certain law enforcement requests, it is important to note that the burden of de-escalation falls on police officers, and they are not obligated to put themselves in danger. Citizens have the right to remain silent and do not have to answer questions about their activities or provide information beyond what is required by law. Additionally, in most cases, citizens can file anonymous complaints against law enforcement officers if they feel their rights have been violated.

Law enforcement officials are expected to fulfil their duties by serving and protecting the community, and they are held to a high degree of responsibility and accountability. Acts of corruption or abuse of authority are incompatible with the profession and are subject to legal consequences.

Police jurisdiction and citizens' property

In the United States, there is a long-standing legal principle known as "posse comitatus," which translates to "force of the country." This doctrine, rooted in English common law, empowers law enforcement officers to enlist civilians and their property for assistance in apprehending fugitives, making arrests, or maintaining peace when they lack the necessary resources. This support could include the use of a citizen's vehicle, as depicted in Hollywood movies, but it is not limited to that. The obligation to aid the police in such situations was once codified in various state laws, with non-compliance considered a misdemeanor in many places. For instance, California's Posse Comitatus Act of 1872 made it mandatory for citizens to comply with law enforcement requests for assistance, failure to do so could result in fines up to $1,000.

However, in recent years, there has been a shift towards recognizing citizens' rights to refuse assistance without facing legal repercussions. California, for instance, repealed its Posse Comitatus Act in 2019, freeing residents from the obligation to aid law enforcement officers in arrests or pursuits. This change aligns with the general understanding that, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, citizens are not obligated to provide anything, including their vehicles, to the police.

While citizens can refuse to hand over their vehicles, there are situations where police officers can legally commandeer them. The Supreme Court has ruled that private property can be seized or appropriated in "cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger." This means that if there is an immediate and substantial threat to people, a community, or an officer, a law enforcement officer may be justified in taking control of a civilian's vehicle. However, these situations are rare, and police departments generally avoid using civilian vehicles due to potential liability issues and concerns for innocent bystanders. Most departments are well-equipped with their own vehicles, reducing the likelihood of needing to commandeer civilian property.

It is important to note that even when citizens voluntarily comply with police requests to use their vehicles, the police department can be held liable for any damage or destruction caused to that property. Citizens may have a valid claim if their vehicle is involved in a crash during a high-speed chase, for example. Therefore, while police officers have the authority to commandeer civilian vehicles in specific circumstances, it is a power that is rarely exercised due to the potential legal and ethical implications.

Refusal to comply: fines and penalties

Refusal to comply with a police officer's request is a serious charge and can result in various fines and penalties depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the refusal. In the United States, the consequences for refusing to aid a law enforcement officer can vary from state to state.

In California, until the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1872 in 2019, it was a misdemeanor for citizens to refuse to help a law enforcement officer with an arrest or capturing a fleeing suspect, and penalties included fines of up to $1,000. However, after the repeal, California residents are now free to refuse a police officer's request for assistance without facing legal repercussions or fines.

In other states, similar laws exist that make it an offense to refuse to aid a law enforcement officer. For example, in Hawaii, refusing to aid a law enforcement officer is considered a petty misdemeanor, while in Alabama, failing to aid a peace officer can result in a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both.

While the specific penalties vary, the common theme is that refusing to comply with a police officer's lawful order can result in legal consequences, including fines, imprisonment, or both. It is important to note that these laws often have specific conditions, such as the request being reasonable and the officer being properly identified. Additionally, there may be exceptions to these laws, such as when an individual has a reasonable excuse or when the officer's request is reckless or unreasonable.

It is worth noting that the obligation to aid law enforcement officers has been a subject of legal debate, with some challenging the extent of this obligation. As such, it is advisable to seek legal counsel if facing charges related to refusing to comply with a police officer's request.

Police liability for damage to citizens' vehicles

In the United States, police pursuits are a common occurrence, and they can often result in damage to the vehicles involved and bystanders' property. Determining liability and understanding the risks involved is a complex process. Law enforcement agencies generally have immunity from being sued unless they act negligently.

In California, until 2019, citizens were obligated to comply with law enforcement officers' requests for help, which could include the commandeering of private vehicles. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1872 made it a misdemeanor to refuse to aid a police officer, with penalties including fines of up to $1000. However, this law was repealed in 2019, and citizens can now refuse to help without facing charges or fines.

If a citizen complies with a police officer's request and their property is damaged, the police may be held liable if they acted negligently. For example, if the police continue a high-speed chase in a densely populated area, there may be grounds for holding them accountable. Additionally, if a police department has specific policies regarding pursuits that are violated, resulting in damage, the department could be held liable.

In some states, courts have held that police damage to property is a compensable taking under their state constitutions. For example, decisions in Texas, Minnesota, and New Jersey have found damage inflicted by police to be a taking under state law. However, federal appellate courts have generally ruled that severe damage to real property does not require compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

When seeking compensation for damages caused by a police pursuit, it is crucial to understand the legal and financial pathways available, including insurance coverage, legal avenues for compensation, and potential negotiations or litigation.

Civil forfeiture and police confiscation of property

In the United States, civil forfeiture allows the government, typically the police, to seize and then keep or sell any property that is allegedly involved in a crime or illegal activity. Owners need not be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. The government does not have to charge the property owner with a specific crime to seize the property, and it must prove only by a preponderance of evidence that the property is legally forfeitable. After the property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity.

Civil forfeiture has been used to discourage illegal activities such as cockfighting, drag racing, gambling in basements, poaching of endangered fish, securities fraud, and other illegal activities. It is seen as a vital and powerful weapon in the battle against illegal drugs and is effective at discouraging criminal activity. It makes it easier for law enforcement to fight organized crime when they have trouble imprisoning offenders since they can deprive them of their property and income.

However, civil forfeiture is often criticized as an unconstitutional exercise of government power, violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and as against a fundamental element of the presumption of innocence. Critics argue that the incentives lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior and abuse. The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutional implications of civil forfeiture in several cases, including Austin v. United States, where the Court ruled that a forfeiture could be considered an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Historically, local laws in many places made it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer, including the use of one's vehicle in a police chase. For example, California's 1872 version of the Posse Comitatus Act made it a misdemeanor to refuse to help a properly identified law enforcement officer in catching or arresting a suspect, recapturing an escaped arrestee or prisoner, or preventing a crime. However, in 2019, California repealed this law, and citizens can now refuse to help a law enforcement officer without facing charges or fines.

Frequently asked questions