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."
The federal courts also need to end civil asset forfeiture.
But... when Burn Loot Murder activists get their stuff taken - the courts are eager to give it back.
Is this why the FBI released Crook’s body so fast? / sarc
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.
Apparently, a top feeder judge of law clerks to the Supreme Court.
Confirmed 50 to 48.
this has nothing to do with the BLM
it has to do with theft under color of law
However, they can still seize property and never arrest anyone.
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.
I was going to post the same thing.
I was going to ask about that. They can’t argue that comports with the Fourth Amendment with a straight face.
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.
Different issue.
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.
“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.
Exactly, if these phones had been taken from pro Trump protesters this same court would have ruled opposite.
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
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.
This is the right decision. Admittedly for the wrong reasons, but the right decision.
That cop did you a favor. Jennings pistols suuuuuck and have no value. They were also know to explode back then.
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.