Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest, Federal Court Rules
Reason ^ | 8.16.2024 | Patrick McDonald

Posted on 08/16/2024 2:56:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.

The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the length of a seizure, a federal court ruled last week, significantly restricting how long law enforcement can retain private property after an arrest.

"When the government seizes property incident to a lawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued possession of the property must be reasonable," wrote Judge Gregory Katsas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a unanimous ruling.

Most courts of appeal to pass judgment on the issue—namely, the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 11th circuits—have held that, once an item is seized, law enforcement can retain the item indefinitely without violating the Fourth Amendment. These precedents have allowed police to retain personal property without clear legal grounds, effectively stripping people of their property rights merely because they were arrested. The D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling complicates this general consensus.

Though law enforcement does not have to return property "instantaneously," Katsas wrote, the Fourth Amendment requires that any "continuing retention of seized property" be reasonable. So while police can use seized items for "legitimate law-enforcement purposes," such as for evidence at trial, and are permitted some delay for "matching a person with his effects," prolonged seizures serving no important function can implicate the Fourth Amendment, the court ruled.

Given that the D.C. court finds itself in the minority on the question, some say that the case may be primed for the Supreme Court if the District chooses to appeal. "This case has potential to make national precedent," Paul Belonick, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco law school, tells Reason. "The influential D.C. Circuit deliberately intensified a circuit split and put itself in the minority of circuits on the question, teeing it up cleanly for certiorari."

The plaintiffs each had their property seized by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Five of the plaintiffs were arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. on August 13, 2020.

As they were arrested, MPD officers seized their phones and other items. Though the protesters did not face any charges and were, in Katsas' words, "quickly released," MPD retained their phones for around a year. Some of the plaintiffs had to wait over 14 months to get their property back.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs say that they were forced to replace their phones and lost access to the important information on the originals, including personal files, contacts, and passwords. "The plaintiffs have alleged that the seizures at issue, though lawful at their inception, later came to unreasonably interfere with their protected possessory interests in their own property," Katsas explained.

"MPD is aware of the ruling and will continue to work with our partners at the United States Attorney's Office to ensure that our members are trained appropriately to ensure compliance with recent rulings," a spokesperson for MPD tells Reason.

"Practically, this case is important because police have been exploiting a gap in the Fourth Amendment," Andrew Ferguson, a professor at American University's Washington College of Law, tells Reason. "In situations where there is a lawful arrest, but no prosecution, there are no clear rules on retaining personal property. In these cases, police have been confiscating phones to punish protestors."

Michael Perloff, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, agreed that the D.C. Circuit's decision could set an important precedent going forward. "Nationally, we've seen litigants attempt to challenge similar practices only to fail because the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not limit the duration of a seizure," he tells Reason. "Moving forward, we are hopeful that the D.C. Circuit's opinion will lead courts to reconsider those rulings and, instead, enforce the Fourth Amendment as fully as the framers intended."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; assetforfeiture; courts; police; propertyseizure; seizure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
I'm not even sure why this is a question.
1 posted on 08/16/2024 2:56:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The federal courts also need to end civil asset forfeiture.


2 posted on 08/16/2024 3:00:39 PM PDT by Soul of the South (The past is gone and cannot be changed. Tomorrow can be a better day if we work on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
As I read this article, I'm lead to understand that confiscation of property has been fine for decades. No courts have ruled otherwise.

But... when Burn Loot Murder activists get their stuff taken - the courts are eager to give it back.

3 posted on 08/16/2024 3:01:05 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (2 coups in less than 4 years. America is truly a first world Banana Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Is this why the FBI released Crook’s body so fast? / sarc


4 posted on 08/16/2024 3:05:13 PM PDT by tired&retired (Blessings )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I've been waiting on such a ruling for some time.

NOW, what about all those J6 prisoners being held without trial? And those who have long sentences for a misdemeanor for tresspassing? That is even more egregious.

5 posted on 08/16/2024 3:05:48 PM PDT by A Navy Vet (USA Birth Certificate - 1787. Death Certificate - 2021? )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW
Gregory Katsas of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Apparently, a top feeder judge of law clerks to the Supreme Court.

Confirmed 50 to 48.

6 posted on 08/16/2024 3:05:53 PM PDT by kiryandil (FR Democrat Party operatives! Rally in defense of your Colombian cartel stooge Merchan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

this has nothing to do with the BLM

it has to do with theft under color of law


7 posted on 08/16/2024 3:06:51 PM PDT by algore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

However, they can still seize property and never arrest anyone.


8 posted on 08/16/2024 3:13:37 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: algore
this has nothing to do with the BLM

it has to do with theft under color of law

The plaintiffs each had their property seized by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Five of the plaintiffs were arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. on August 13, 2020.

This has EVERYTHING to do with BLM.

BLM activists get their stuff back while J6 protestors rot in jail.

9 posted on 08/16/2024 3:19:08 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (2 coups in less than 4 years. America is truly a first world Banana Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

I was going to post the same thing.


10 posted on 08/16/2024 3:20:45 PM PDT by scott7278 (Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

I was going to ask about that. They can’t argue that comports with the Fourth Amendment with a straight face.


11 posted on 08/16/2024 3:21:54 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
However, they can still seize property and never arrest anyone.

True. And many if not most Asset Forfeiture cases center on drugs. Cops stop a drug runner. They confiscate his cash and car. They set a trial date, but the illegal never shows. 

Alternatively, a drug lord may lose his home if convicted and proof is made that he bought said home from the profit of illegal drugs.

Not all Asset Forfeiture cases are evil.

12 posted on 08/16/2024 3:25:46 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (2 coups in less than 4 years. America is truly a first world Banana Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Different issue.


13 posted on 08/16/2024 3:34:21 PM PDT by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

Agreed. Property should never be forfeited without it being directly gained from a crime. Otherwise, law enforcement is guilty of theft or grand larceny and since they are armed, pile on more charges. If I use armed intimidation and theft, I’m fairly sure I would get 20 years.


14 posted on 08/16/2024 3:44:34 PM PDT by wgmalabama (Censored!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Not all Asset Forfeiture cases are evil.”

True, but it’s hard to tell the good cases vs. the evil ones - and cops abuse the *** out of it. It needs to stop.


15 posted on 08/16/2024 3:54:23 PM PDT by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Exactly, if these phones had been taken from pro Trump protesters this same court would have ruled opposite.


16 posted on 08/16/2024 4:05:21 PM PDT by Husker24 (Pp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Cops got a .22 pistol from me 35 years ago in a raid on a new housemate while I was at work.

Cop that confiscated it straight up told me he was the one that inventoried it and he was the only one who get get it out and he wasn't going to.

It was a $50 Jennings but it would be worth more today.

It I ever run into sgt Catipano I will collect on sight. pos

17 posted on 08/16/2024 4:06:07 PM PDT by Manic_Episode (A government of the government, by the government, for the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Not all Asset Forfeiture cases are evil.

But quite a few are. We used to far more concerned with protecting the innocent rather than inflicting extra-legal punishment on suspected law breakers.

Modern forfeiture laws are only about three decades old. All supposed to be about the "war on some drugs".

Billions have been stolen from people without ever being convicted of a crime.

18 posted on 08/16/2024 6:05:40 PM PDT by marktwain (The Republic is at risk. Resistance to the Democratic Party is Resistance to Tyranny. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This is the right decision. Admittedly for the wrong reasons, but the right decision.


19 posted on 08/16/2024 6:29:53 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode

That cop did you a favor. Jennings pistols suuuuuck and have no value. They were also know to explode back then.


20 posted on 08/16/2024 6:30:45 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson