The police department or city should be sued for it, if the warrant were unlawfully obtainedor if items seized during the search allegedly went missing. And they were sued.
The ruling you are complaining about was specifically about removing the officers as individual defendants from the civil case. The city of Fresno is still a defendant in the case. It is simply the individual officers that are not.
On another note--the difference in values in that case is due to how the police recorded the coins into evidence. When physical money is taken into evidence, they record the stated value of the money (i.e., a quarter is recorded as a quarter...even if it is a rare quarter worth $1million on the collectibles market, since it's not the police's job to get an appraisal for items taken into evidence). The plaintiffs valued the collectibles at their alleged market values.
Here's one case that recently came to my attention: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop-br...
The plaintiffs allege that, while executing a search warrant, Fresno police officers personally stole several hundred thousand dollars worth of coins. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that even if this theft happened, the officers could not be sued:
> We recognize that the allegation of any theft by police officers—most certainly the theft of over $225,000—is deeply disturbing. Whether that conduct violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, however, would not “be ‘clear to a reasonable officer.’” [...] Because Appellants did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to consider the plaintiffs' appeal, which means they're SOL.