Mancini v. City of Tacoma

• Decision Date: 28 January 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 97583-3,97583-3
• Citation: 196 Wash.2d 864,479 P.3d 656
• Parties: Kathleen MANCINI, a single woman, Petitioner, v. CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal entity and political subdivision of the state of Washington; the Tacoma Police Department; and Don Ramsdell, individually and in his official capacity as chief of Tacoma Police, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

196 Wash.2d 864

479 P.3d 656

Kathleen MANCINI, a single woman, Petitioner,

v.CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal entity and political subdivision of the state of Washington; the Tacoma Police Department; and Don Ramsdell, individually and in his official capacity as chief of Tacoma Police, Respondents.

NO. 97583-3

Supreme Court of Washington, EN BANC.

Argued May 5, 2020

Filed: January 28, 2021

Lori S. Haskell, Law Office of Lori S. Haskell, 7511 Greenwood Ave. N., Seattle, WA, 98103-4627, Gary Manca, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick, 2775 Harbor Ave. Sw, Third Floor, Suite C, Seattle, WA, 98126, for Petitioner.

Jean P. Homan, Tacoma City Attorney's Office, 747 Market St. #1120, Tacoma, WA, 98402-3701, for Respondents.

Valerie Davis McOmie, Attorney at Law, 4549 Nw Aspen St., Camas, WA, 98607-8302, Daniel Edward Huntington, Richter-Wimberley PS, 422 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1300, Spokane, WA, 99201-0305, for Amicus Curiae Washington State Association for Justice Foundation.

Pamela Beth Loginsky, Washington Assoc. of Prosecuting Attys., 206 10th Ave. Se, Olympia, WA, 98501-1311, Ryan Joseph Lukson, Benton County Prosecutor's Office, 7122 W. Okanogan Pl. Bldg. A, Kennewick, WA, 99336-2359, for Amicus Curiae Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

Douglas Robert Mitchell, KCPAO, 205 W. 5th Ave. Ste. 213, Ellensburg, WA, 98926-2887, Daniel Ray Hamilton, Attorney at Law, 955 Tacoma Ave. S. Ste. 301, Tacoma, WA, 98402-2160, for Amici Curiae Washington State Association of Counties, and Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

Daniel G. Lloyd, Vancouver City Attorney's Office, P.O. Box 1995, 415 W. 6th St., Vancouver, WA, 98668-1995, for Amicus Curiae Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys.

Nancy Lynn Talner, Antoinette M. Davis, ACLU-WA, P.O. Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, William H. Block, Attorney at Law, 3002 Cascadia Ave. S., Seattle, WA, 98144-6214, Jose Dino Vasquez, Karr Tuttle Campbell, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 3300, Seattle, WA, 98104-7055, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

GORDON McCLOUD, J.

¶ 1 On January 5, 2011, at 9:45 a.m., eight Tacoma police officers broke open the door of a Federal Way apartment with a battering ram. They had a search warrant, and they expected to find Matthew Logstrom, a young drug dealer living in a somewhat unkempt apartment. Instead, they awakened Kathleen Mancini: an older nurse living in a well-kept home, who had been sleeping after working the night shift. The police nevertheless handcuffed Mancini and took her, without shoes and wearing only a nightgown, outside while they searched. Mancini sued these police for negligence in the performance of their duties.

¶ 2 The Washington State Legislature has enacted a broad waiver of sovereign immunity. Consistent with that waiver, we hold that the standard tort duty of reasonable care applies with full force to police executing a search warrant. The jury found that the police breached that duty that they owed to Mancini and substantial evidence supports that verdict. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the jury's verdict. We do not reach the question of whether police may separately be liable for the tort that the parties label "negligent investigation."

FACTS

I. POLICE INVESTIGATION

¶ 3 A confidential informant (CI) advised Tacoma Police Officer Kenneth Smith that she had seen a dealer-sized quantity of drugs at Logstrom's apartment in Federal Way. 1 Verbatim Tr. of Proceedings (VTP) at 56. The CI identified one of four identical buildings and said she had seen those drugs in apartment B1. 3 VTP at 256. She was sure it was that building because Logstrom's car was in front of it. Id. The CI also told Officer Smith that Logstrom rented his apartment in his mother's name. 1 VTP at 53; 3 VTP at 255.

¶ 4 Smith performed an online public record check of Logstrom and apartment B1. 3 VTP at 261-62. Specifically, Smith used "Accurint," a site that provides personal information for a fee.¹ 1 VTP at 51. Accurint produced 150 pages of information. 3 VTP at 308. From that information, Smith learned that Mancini resided at apartment B1 and that Logstrom was not associated with that apartment. 1 VTP at 51; 3 VTP at 262. Smith did not recall learning that Mancini had rented apartment B1 since 2006, that Mancini paid the utilities for apartment B1, that a Group Health landline was associated with apartment B1 for Mancini's work, or any details of the Accurint search beyond Mancini's age and race. 1 VTP at 51-54; 3 VTP at 306-08. Based on Mancini's age and race, Smith believed Mancini could be Logstrom's mother. 3 VTP at 262.

¶ 5 Smith testified that he ordinarily performed surveillance and conducted a controlled buy² in a target apartment in 95 percent of similar investigations. But he took neither step in this case. 1 VTP at 49-50. He provided numerous reasons for skipping these steps, including the limited relationship between the CI and Logstrom, Smith's hesitance about interacting with the King County Prosecutor's Office, and limited officer availability due to the holidays and hunting season. 3 VTP at 278-79, 253.

¶ 6 Instead, Smith applied for a search warrant for apartment B1 with only the information he already possessed. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 177-78, 182-83. He attributed all the information about Logstrom to the CI's observations of Logstrom selling methamphetamine from both his apartment and his vehicle.³ CP at 178. A judge issued a search warrant for Logstrom's person and vehicle, and for apartment B1. CP at 183-84.

II. WARRANT EXECUTION

¶ 7 At about 9:45 a.m. on January 5, 2011, eight police officers arrived in a van to execute the warrant at apartment B1. 1 VTP at 57, 60. Police rated Logstrom a "medium threat" because he had been seen with a handgun in the past. 3 VTP at 285. An officer knocked on the door and announced their presence. Id. at 286. They received no response for 20 to 30 seconds. The police then broke open the door with a battering ram. They entered the apartment with guns drawn. 1 VTP at 59-60; 3 VTP at 287; 4 VTP at 442-44. Logstrom lived in apartment A1 in a different building.

¶ 8 Mancini, the occupant of B1, was awakened by a "terrible shake and a loud boom"; at first, she thought it was an earthquake. 4 VTP at 370. She came out of her bedroom in a nightgown to a "sea of black, men in black" with guns pointed at her. Id. at 371-72. They screamed at her to get down and asked, "Where's Matt?" and "Are you Kathleen?" Id. at 371. One officer pushed Mancini onto the floor and cuffed her hands behind her back. Id. Police then "dragged" or " ‘passed’ " her outside of the apartment and denied her request to put on shoes. Id. at 374.

¶ 9 Outside, an officer questioned Mancini about Logstrom. Id. at 378-79. The officer took Mancini, still in a nightgown, handcuffed and unshod, up two flights of stairs toward the parking lot and asked her about a vehicle that belonged to Logstrom. Id. at 379. She told the officer it was associated with the neighboring building. Id.

¶ 10 Eventually, the police uncuffed Mancini and told her they had the wrong apartment.

Id. at 386. Mancini estimated she was cuffed for about 15 minutes. Id. at 393. She acknowledged that she had given inconsistent accounts but clearly stated that it "seemed like forever." Id.

¶ 11 Smith testified that he knew immediately after entering that they had the wrong apartment. 3 VTP at 236, 289-90; CP at 347. Smith did not enter the apartment until police had already taken Mancini into custody; he uncuffed her after what he testified was 1 to 2 minutes. 3 VTP at 234-35. Other officers estimated that the amount of time they spent at Mancini's apartment was between 2 and 8 minutes. 3 VTP at 296; 4 VTP at 349, 351. One officer testified that he performed two "sweeps," which likely took 7.5 to 10 minutes, then he learned they had the wrong apartment another 5 to 7 minutes later. 4 VTP at 453.

¶ 12 Eventually, the police left Mancini's apartment B1. They then approached Logstrom's apartment A1. 3 VTP at 296. The police report omitted the time they left Mancini and the time they first contacted Logstrom. Id. at 218, 237.

¶ 13 But the police had no warrant for apartment A1, so they "had to approach it differently." 4 VTP at 352. The officers knocked on Logstrom's door, and he came out. 3 VTP at 296; CP at 347. Logstrom then consented to a search, and the officers found marijuana plants growing in his apartment. 3 VTP at 297; CP at 347. Unlike at Mancini's apartment, they did not use weapons or a battering ram. CP at 347. Police seized drugs and other items from Logstrom's apartment and took him to the station for questioning. They did not, however, detain him; they released him pending further investigation. CP at 348.

III. LITIGATION

¶ 14 Mancini sued the city of Tacoma, the Tacoma Police Department, and the chief of police (collectively City) for negligence, assault and battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and several other torts. CP at 1, 4-8. As a basis for her negligence claim, Mancini alleged that "actions on January 5, 2011 of all the involved Tacoma Police officers fell below the standard of care in the performance of their duties" and that "[a]s a proximate cause of the actions of the Tacoma Police officers violently entering the wrong apartment[,] Kathleen Mancini suffered injuries." CP at 4. She also alleged that "actions of Tacoma Police officers on January 5, 2011 in ‘capturing’ and restraining Kathleen Mancini fell below the standard of care in performance of their duties because they used excessive force in restraining the plaintiff improperly and without cause." Id.

¶ 15 The City moved for summary judgment on each of Mancini's claims. CP at 201. The City argued that Mancini's negligence claim was for negligent police investigation—a claim that, the City asserts, does not exist in Washington.⁴ CP at 208-10. It also argued that in any event, the City had not breached any duty it owed Mancini. CP at 210-12....