If police departments were responsible for paying for the collateral damage they create and even deliberately exacerbate (time wasted, damage to the car, and emotional distress from assault), this problem would fix itself overnight.
"Probable cause" is not a justification for evading responsibility to their victims.
WASHINGTON, June 27 [2005] - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”
The case can't be too valid if the police aren't confident the person is guilty. It sounds exactly like more detective work would be advised, to avoid harming innocent people.
But yes obviously it would be less efficient to fund the true cost of policing, rather than leaving it the reverse lottery we have now. But not doing so is essentially a violation of due process, as the victims are extrajudicially punished based on mere suspicion.
Time wasted in court and lawyer fees would be added to the list of damages when the victim is finally found innocent. The police and the prosecutor might argue over which one is responsible, but I'm sure after the first few cases of malicious persecution they'll have it figured out.
Private (rather than public) law enforcement would be a good solution. The end result is cost and quality competitive service. The lack of immunity results in much more conscientious policing.
"Probable cause" is not a justification for evading responsibility to their victims.