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."
I have no first hand experience, but from what I understand the following scenario is common.
Cop stops a car on the interstate. Just one Hispanic man is driving from somewhere out of state to somewhere else. He won’t say.
There is probable cause and a dog alerts to drugs. The car is impounded and there is a few kilos of whatever and $25,000 in cash. Pedro isn’t talking.
This is a routine case and the locals know they can’t hold him or if they try - he will bail out. They know that Pedro and his suppliers know the loss of a few kilos and 25K in cash is just a small part of doing business. They know some judge will just sentence Pedro to time served if he is tried and found guilty. They know they can’t deport him. If they did, He’d be back in the US within a week. With more drugs to smuggle.
They know it is more effective to keep the cash and the car and destroy the drugs and let Pedro go to try again another day.
Besides - this keeps the crime stats low. And there are no forfeiture issues. The cash and car are labeled as abandoned and unclaimed.
Our criminal justice system is a joke.
About effing time. I am sick and tired of the federal government using its enormous power to run rough shot over people. This is one little instance, but it is a big deal that was the DC circuit, because usually the better judges are put in that circuit as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. I haven’t read or analyzed this opinion, but I sincerely doubt that the statist judges voted for this ruling.
When police confiscate guns for one reason or another and then find out they’re legal, etc., they invariably take their sweet time on returning them as they are required. There are cases where they’ve had to be sued to return them.
Got one in .25 that hasn’t worked in 20 years so yeah =p
Your own post contradicts itself. Forfeiture is not a productive policy to stop crime or drug use.
It is very effective in it allows police to steal property for their own use and their own budgets.
The more common scenario is Joe Schmoe is driving on the interstate, known to be used by drug smugglers. He has a few thousand in cash because he does not trust banks, and is looking to buy a car.
Cops find a pretext to stop him, such as failing to signal a lane change. They pull him over, search the car, find the money, and take it. He cannot afford a few thousand in lawyers fees so they get to keep the cash.
This happened a lot on an Interstate in Texas. After enough of it, it was discovered and shut down.
A friend of mine's son was found to have a baggie of marijuana. The cops "forfeited" his work truck, worth a few thousand. It put a real hurt on him.
Cops at airports look for people carrying cash, so they can steal it.
These abuses are real. The police do not have to prove a crime. They only have to articulate a suspicion.
Lots of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi Sheriff’s just took a Huge pay cut.
“I’m not even sure why this is a question.”
Because they do. I still have a couple firearms they wont give back. Legal firearms confiscated on a false search warrant. Told me to take it to court. Cost me more than the firearms were worth. But they were heirlooms, I wonder which of those officer’s collection those went to?
Did they actually arrest the person and were they charged?
If the answer to both is no, then the CAF is evil.
“Did they actually arrest the person and were they charged?”
Not to even mention that an “arrest” is NOT a “conviction”. You are guilty of nothing until you are convicted. But they keep property such as firearms even if you are never convicted and deemed guilty.
I want my knife back.
So, because the property (Jennings .22) was of less than perfect construction (according to your standards), that warrants its theft from the legal owner?
Read that again slowly and tell us where the problem lies.
Theft is theft, no matter the perpetrator, or “reasoning” behind it.
Not saying that it wasn’t wrong, just pointing out that maybe he shouldn’t want it back. :P
Or, alternately, that he should have been compensated with fair market value for the weapon rather than it being returned. Because seriously, Jennings have gotten a lot of people killed and injured over the years and the best thing to do with one is sell it en masse to gun ‘buybacks’ for a profit so the event goes bust quickly. People used to do that which is why they now mostly only offer gift certificates instead of cash, lol.
To keep should require (A) a conviction and (B) proof from the state that such items were either used by the owner in or the fruit of the crime the person was convicted of.
If the person is not arrested and charged you may not touch their stuff.
Unless both A and B have been met you need to give their stuff back.
Just recently the Supreme Court in my state ruled that you could not just take someone's car because they gave someone, who was a drug user, a ride when there were no drugs found on the driver, on the passenger or in the car.
You would think that would be logical.
But no. She had to take to the highest court in the state to get her 2006 Ion back.
This taking of people's stuff is out of hand.
“This taking of people’s stuff is out of hand.”
Sure is.
You still don’t quite understand the problem here: It is NOT YOUR DECISION, it is not the police department’s decision, IT IS HIS decision as to the disposal or retention OF HIS PROPERTY!
And you have no sense of humor. Hint: Read his reply to me. He got it, you didn’t.
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.