If this is true then I agree. These persons were acting outside their powers as agents of the Federal Government and they should be prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto by the state government.
They should also be required by the state courts to make financial restitution.
In seeking discovery, MIC suggests that the federal agent took and crashed its $750,000 Ferrari while on a “joyride.” If this was indeed the case, that fact would not help MIC. As the government points out, the FTCA narrows the context of liability to its employees’ tortious acts performed within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Whether an employee acted within this scope is a matter of state law. See RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1143 (6th Cir.1996). Under Michigan law, an employee is acting within the scope of his employment unless he “steps aside from his employment to ... accomplish some purpose of his own.” Green v. Shell Oil Co., 181 Mich.App. 439, 444, 450 N.W.2d 50 (1989) (quoting Martin v. Jones, 302 Mich. 355, 356, 4 N.W.2d 686 (1942)). The question is whether the employee “could in some way have been held to have been promoting his master’s business.” Bryant v. Brannen, 180 Mich.App. 87, 95, 446 N.W.2d 847 (1989). The use by federal employees of a detained vehicle for pleasure a/k/a “joy riding” would very likely fall outside of the scope of their employment. If that were the case, MIC would not be able to bring a claim against the government in the first instance.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. U.S. 2011 WL 4506103, 4 (E.D.Mich.) (E.D.Mich.,2011)