The pl ai nt iff s sa y the m one y was “s ei ze d” a nd the Ci t y s ays 1 i twas “r ec ove re d. ” T he d is t ri c tc our tdoubt ed the re was an y (co n tin u ed ...) 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 1455 E LT ON G ATE S an d L USTER N E L S ON, P laint if fs -App el lants , v . C ITY OF C HI CAGO, P HILIP J. C LI NE, J AM ES E CHO LS, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C2155

—RubenC astil lo,Ju dge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 27, 2010

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Pe rs on s w h o are ar re ste d by Ch i cago pol i ce o ffi cer s o ften a re carr yin g s m al l am ounts o fcas h w h i c h th e o ffi c e r s s e i z e a n d i n v e n t o r y a tthe 12 N o. 08

- 1455

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 d iffer en ce . G ates v. Tow ery, 50 7 F .Sup p .2d 904 , 91 5 (N .D
. Ill. 2007) ( hereafter“ G ates II”). W e ag ree w ith th e d i strict cou rt. Th e Ci t y’ s po s i t i oni s c ur i ou s i n l i gh to fi t s r e l i a nc e o n 7 2 5 I LCS 5/ 108 e ts e q. as prov iding adequate procedu re s f or the re turn ofthe m on ey . T he r el eva ntpar t s ofSe c t i on 10 8 a ddre s s the “C u stod y an d D ispo sition o f T hin g s S eiz ed, ” 725 I LC S 5/ 108- 2; the “R etu rn to C ou rt of Th ing s S eized , ” 7 25 I LCS 5 / 10 8-10 ; an d the “ D ispo sition of T hin g s S eized ,” 72 5 IL C S 5/10 8-11 ( em p ha sis a d d ed ). ti m e o far re st. The pl ai nti ff s her e were ar re ste es f ro m whom po l i ce o ffi ce r s co nfi sc at ed smal l amoun ts of cash. T h e a rre st ee s u n s u c c es sfu lly so u gh t t h e re tu rn of th eir m o ne y a nd c ha l l en g ed th e Ci ty ’ s poli ci es g o ve r ni ngthe re turn o fse i zed fund s. They a l so chal l enged the no ti ce th e C ity provi d e d of th ose p oli cies. T he district cou rt g r an ted su m m ar y j udg m en t to the Ci tyo n the pl aintiffs ’ fed er al d u e p ro c es s cla im s a n d d ism iss ed th eir state l aw restit u t ion clai m s as m oot. T he plaintiff s appe ala nd we affi rm i n pa r t, a nd v ac at e an d r emand i n part
.
I. Ch i cago pol i ce o ffi cer s a rr est ed Elt on Ga tes f orag gr ava te d b at te r y, i n v i o l at i o n o f7 20 I LCS 5/ 12

- 4(b) ( 6) , a nd Lu ste r N el son for m anufa cture o r del i ver y o fcr ack co ca i ne i n vi o l at i o n o f 72 0 I LCS 57 0/40 1( c) ( 2)

. The offi cer s s ei zed $1 13 i n cash f ro m Gates atthe ti m e o f hi s J a nu a r y 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 a r r e s t, a nd $ 5 9 f r o m Ne l s o n onN o. 08

- 1455 3

Althoughne i the r s i de i s pr ec i s e i n de s c ribi ng h ow t he 2 i nve nt or y re ceip ti s i s s ued t o the ar re s t ee , we ga the r thatthe receipt is phys i c al l y ha nded di re c t l y t o the ar re s t ee atthe t i m e the pr ope rty i s t ake n a nd i nve nt or i ed. The f ac e ofthe re ce ip t d ir ec ts t h e o ffice r t o “g iv e t h is c o p y to ar re ste e.” B oth G ates’ and N elson ’ s receip ts con tain the “ N otice to 3 Prop er ty O w ner or Claim ant. ” Inex plic ably, the dist ri ctcourt f ound thatN el son’ s rec ei pt did no t contai n the N oti ce, even though b oth s id es agree, and ou r re view confir m s, that N el so n ’s re ce ip t d o es in fa ct co n ta in th e N o tic e. S ee G ates II , 507 F. Sup p.2d a t 9 1 1 n . 2. W e c an only as sum e the dis tr ic t c ourt was vi ewi ng s om e othe r ver sion o f the r ec ei pt
. Ator al ar gum e nt, the Ci t y e x pl a i ne d tha tthe c op y ofthe i nv e nt or y r e c e i pt prov i de d t o the s t a t e c ou r tj udg e di ff e r e d fr om t he f or m prov ided to the arres tee
. Iti s possib le t h a t the dis tr ic t c ourt jud g e w as v iew ing the co p y no rm ally giv en to the state (co n tin u ed ...) F eb r ua r y 4 , 2 00 4. Underpr o cedur es i n pl ac e atthe Ch i cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent a t that t i m e, ea ch m an was i s s ue d a p r o pe r t y i nv e nt o r yr e c e i pttha tl i s t e d the p r o p-

2 er ty sei zed, a cour t date , the charg es, a n d the nam es an d s ta r num be r s o fthe po l i ce o ffi ce r s effec tingthe sei zu r es . I n e ac h i ns ta nc e, the o ffi ce r fi l l i ngo utthe i nvento ryr ecei pt in d ica ted thatthe proper ty w oul d be he l d “ f o r inv est i g at i o n a nd/ o r e vi den ce . ” Altho ug h the f or m at ofthe i nventor y r ecei pts change d sl i ghtly betw een the ti m e Gate s was ar re ste d i n 200 3 a nd N el son was a r r es te d i n 2 00 4, o ne pa r t o fthe form st ay ed es se nti al l y the sa m e: the ri ght- si de col um n lab eled “N oti ce to Pro p er ty O w ner orCl ai m ant, ” which we w i l l r eferto as th e “ N ot ice .” 34 N o. 08

- 1455

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 c our tj udge and thatthe Noti ce w as om i t t ed fro m thatc opy. Thi s i s buton e i ns t anc e ofthe c onfus ed s t at e ofthe r ec or d, an d iti s a s ignific ant one; i t wou ld be im possib le for the dis tr ic t c our tt o j udge the ade qua c y ofnot i c e when the s ubs t anc e of th e n o tic e w a s u n ce rt a in
. T he N oti c e is p rinte d alm ost en tirely in all cap ital letters, 4 ex c eptf or t wo ci t at i ons t o I l l i noi s St atut es . I ndee d, eve n the no nN otice p ar t s o f t h e inv en tor y f or m ap p ear in all cap ital letters. F or ease o f rea d ing , w e w ill use a m or e con v en tion al form at. W e are al so om it ti ng a paragrap h i n t h e m idd le ofthe N oti ce w h ic h is not r el evant to the is sues here and w hich neither si de cit es . Final ly, the re i s so m e tes ti m ony in the rec ord that th e r e i s a b o x t o th e le f t o fth e “ P r o p e r ty Re l e a s e Or de r ( C P D34 .554) R equ ired ” line t ha t officers ch eck w he n th at form is requir ed. T h e b o x i s not vis ible on any of the pho tocopie s thatappe ar in the r eco rd a nd no c he c k m ar k i s vi s ibl e on e i th e r p l a i n t i ff’ s f o r m. I n re l evantpart, the N oti ce s tat es: 4 Pro pertyRel eas e Order( CP D-34. 554) Requi re d Return t o the pol ice st ati on wh er e y our proper ty w as tak en fro m yo u. Giv e thi s c op y to the desk offi ceri n char ge f orf or m s a nd i nstr ucti ons necessar y forthe re turn o fyo ur pro perty
. U pon offi cial noti fi cati on that inventor i ed proper ty i s av ai l ab l e f o r r el ea se , the s ubj ec t o w ne r o r c l ai m an t m us tp i c ku p the p r o pe r t y wi thin 3 0 da y s o fn o t i f i cati on o r the pr oper ty w i l l be l ega l l y di spose d of a cc o r d i n gt o th e d i r e c t i o n o fth e l a w. * * * *N o. 08

- 1455 5

The re i s on e m i nor di ff er en c e. The s en t en c e re ading , “Ifno t 5 acce pted, a tt a ch t o Cop y 5, ” app ears on the f orm f or Gates bu t i s absent f rom the f orm for N el so n . This se ntence i s ir rel eva ntt o the i s sues p res e nt e d o n a ppe a l a nd i s n otc i t e d b y ei ther s ide. The pl ai nt i ff s do n otappe al the j udgm en tgr ant ed i n f avor 6 ofthe i ndi vi dual d efen dant s . W e wil l r efert o the r em ai ni ng d efe n d a n t a s “ th e C ity .” A rr est ee I nfo rm ati on S ei zu r e wi th o uts ea r chwar r an t

— ( I l l

. R e v . S t a t
. Ch a p. 38, S ec. 10 8- 2) : ( 725 I LC S 5/ 108- 2) Give thi s co py to ar re ste e. If not a ccepted, at tach t o Copy 5. S ei zu r e wi ths ea r chwar r an t

— ( I l l

. Rev. S tat
. Chap 38, Se c. 10 8- 10) ( 725 I LC S 5/ 108- 10) A tta ch thi s co py to se ar ch w ar ra nt. R. 21 4- 2, Ex. 2 ( “Gates Recei pt”) and Ex. 3 ( “N els on Receip t”). 5 G ates later p led gu ilty to aggravat ed battery of a pol i ce offi cer and was sente nced to tw o yea rs ’ pro bati on. A fterunsuccess full y s eek i ng the r etur n o f h is $ 113, Gates fi l ed a c l ass act i on l aw sui t a gai nst the Ci ty of Chi ca g o , the S upe r i nt en den t o fthe Po l i ce De par tm en t (then Ph il ip C li ne , and now J o d y W eis), and the offi cers i nvol ved i n h is arre st. Gates al l ege d that the not i ce 6 gi ven o n the i nventor y r ec ei pt w as m i sl eadi ng be cause i t advi sed ar re ste es that they w oul d b e noti fi ed wh en6 N o. 08

- 1455 thei r proper ty w as avail ab le forr el eas e but the Ci ty ne v e r s e nd s s uc h a no t i c e a nd he di d no t r e c e i ve one. H e also al leged t h a t h e w en t to the C ity ofCh icago’s Evi de nc e a nd R e c o v e r e d P r o pe r t y S e c t i o n ( “ ER PS ”) s e v e r a l t i mes b e t we e n J uly 2 0 0 3 a nd F e b r ua r y 20 04, each t i m e dem anding the r etur n ofhi s m oney . O n ea ch occa si on, he was t ol d by a Chica go pol i ce offi certhat he c o ul d no t r e t r i e v e h i s p r o pe r t y u nl e s s h e s e c ur e d a si gned re l eas e f ro m the ar re sti ng offi cer . Gates as serte d that he r epeate dlyat tem pted to secu re a si gned r el eas e f ro m the ar re sti ng o ffi cer s but w as to ld ev er y t i m e that the o ffi cer s were not avai l abl e a nd thatno one el se coul d author i ze the r el eas e o fhi s pro perty
. T h e c h ar ge s a ga in st N els on w er e d ism iss ed ap p ro x im ate l y o ne m onth a fterhi s a rr est
. N el son’ s ex p er i ence see ki ng the r et u rn o fhi s m oneypara l l el ed that of Gat es . Li k e Gat es , he a l l eg ed th athe wentto ERPS seve ra l ti m es and w as tol d he n ee d ed a re l eas e o rder f ro m the ar re sti ng o ffi cerbefor e hi s m oneywould be retu rned to him

. Like G ates, he sou gh t out the arresting offi cers on m ultiple occa sions bu t the officers wer e una va i l ab l e. He s ue d the C ity, the S upe r i nt en den t an d the a r r es tingo ffi ce r s al l eg i ngtha t the no ti ce o n the i nventor y r ecei pt w as m i sl eadi ng be cause i t ind i cate d he wo ul d b e n o t i fi e d w hen hi s p r o pe r t y wa s r e a dy f o r r el ea se e ve n tho ugh th e Ci tyne ve r i ss ue s su cha noti fi cati on a nd he di d not r ecei ve one. B oth Ga tes an d N elson asse rted that they w ere depri ved ofthei r proper ty w i thout du e pr oce ss ofl aw be ca us e: ( 1) the de fen dan ts s ei ze d the property a ndN o. 08

- 1455 7

re tai ned i t form onths w i thout i nsti tuti ng f or fei ture pro c e e di ng s whe r e i n the y c o ul d e s t a b l i s h the i r r i g ht to the r e t urn ofthe i r p r o pe r t y ; ( 2 ) the i nv e nt o r y r e c e i pt f al sel y re prese nted that they w oul d b e noti fi ed wh en thei r proper ty w as avai l abl e f orr el eas e; ( 3) the defen dan ts c o nt i nue d t o r et ain the pr o per tya fter c o nclu s ion of th e crim inal procee d ings even thou gh there was no b as i s i n l aw o r f act to see kf o r fei tu r e o fthe funds a t th atpo i nt ; ( 4) a fte r s ei zingpr o per tywi th o ut pr i o r j ud ici ala utho r i za ti o n, the de fen dan ts r et aine d the pr o pe r t y wi th o u ts e e k i n gf o r fe i t u r e o r s i mpl y r e t u r n i ng the pr oper ty; and ( 5) the City ’ s pol i cy to re tai n sei zed p rop erty, to p rovide a f alse and m is lead ing inven tory re cei pt, and to r efuse t o pr om ptl y r etur n the proper ty at the c oncl usi on o fcr i m i nal pro ceedi ngs i s desi gned to del ay the r etu rn o f non- f or fei tabl e pr oper ty to i ts r i g ht fulo wne r s . F o r the s e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o ns o f4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 ( he r ea fte r “ S ec ti o n 1 98 3” ) , b o thpl aint i ff s so ug ht th e re tu rn of th eir p ro p er ty , un sp ec ified rea so n ab le d am ages, and an aw ard of costs a nd reason able attorn eys ’ fees . The defendants al so soughtto cer ti fy a cl ass ofper sons ar re ste d afterM ar ch 23 , 20 02, fro m wh om th e d efen dan ts s ei ze d pr o per typur su an t to the Ci ty ’s p o l i c y . G a t e s a n d N e l s o n l a t e r a d d e d s t a t e l a w c l a i ms f orco nver si on, r epl evi n, unj ust e nri chm ent a nd co nstr ucti ve t r us t, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, s ee k in gda m ag es a nd the r etur n ofthei r m oney . Tw o days a fterGates fi l ed sui t, the GeneralCounsel to the S up er i ntendent ofPol i ce s ent a checkf or$1 13 to Gates’ at torney with a l et te r offer i ng to pay i nter est
.8 N o. 08

- 1455 Gat es ’ a tt o r ne y r etur ned the c he ck

. Appro xi m at ely o ne m o nth a ft e r Ne l s o n wa s a dde d a s a p l a i nt i ff, the Ge nera l Counsel se nt a check f or$5 9 t o counse l f orN el son ( both m en ar e r epres ented bythe sam e att or n ey), al so ac co m pan ie d b y a l et te r o ffer i ngt o pa y i nt er es t. The p lain tiffs ’ law ye r re tu rn ed th at ch ec k a s w ell. The dis tr i ct c ourtev entual l y c er ti fi ed two cl ass es of perso ns wh o, betw een M ar ch 23, 20 02 and D ec em b er14 , 2004, had proper ty tak en fro m them atth e ti m e o f th eir arr es ts , w h os e c rim in al c as es h ad be en res olv ed in the t ri alco urt, wh er e no f or fei ture act i on had bee n i ni ti ate d and the ti m e f orfi lin g a fo rfei ture act i on had expir ed, wh er e the pro perty w as not i nventor i ed as ev i d e n c e in a n y c r i mi n a li n v e s t i g a t i o n, wh e r e t he ar re ste e was i ssued an inventor y r ecei pt thati nd i cate d the a rr est ee w oul d be not i fi ed w h en t he pro pertywas avai l abl e f orr el eas e, and w here the m oneyh ad not yetbee n re turned t o the a rr est ee. One cl ass co nsi ste d ofn a r c o t i c s a r r e s t e e s a nd the o the r c l a s s wa s c o mpr i s ed ofper sons ar re ste d fo r offenses notr el ate d to narco ti cs. The d efendants pet i ti oned f ori nter l ocuto ryr evi ew o f th e class c e r tification. W e grant ed that pet iti on an d affirm ed

. Se eGat e s v. Towery, 43 0 F
. 3d 429 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (hereafter “ G a tes I”). I n G a tes I

, we rej ecte d the Ci ty’ s a rgum en t that cl ass c erti fi cati on was i m properbec ause the c ase was m o o te d b y the Ci ty ’ s o ffert o r etur n the fun d s to the nam ed pla i nti ff s. W e a gr eed with the di st ric t co urt that the c l ai m s o fthe cl ass r epres en ta ti ves w er e no t m oo t b e c a u s e t h e C i t y ’ s t e n d e r t o G a t e s a n d N e l s o n w a s i n c o m-N o. 08

- 1455 9 pl et e. The pl aint i ff s so ug htf o r the m se l ve s ( an d the cl as s) the r etur n o fthe s ei ze d pr o per ty, pr ej ud gm ent i nter est, co m pen sat or y dam age s f orany i nj ury att ributabl e t o the l oss o fthe proper ty’ s use , and com pensati on f orthe val ue o fthei r ti m e s pent tr yi ng to r etr i eve th ei r pr o per ty
. W e no ted th ata t en deri s i ns uffi ci en t un l e s s i tma k e s a p l a i nt i ffwh o l e and thu s mus ti nc l ud e fi l i ng fees and other costs . 4 30 F. 3d at 431. W e a l so no t e d tha t a pr o mi s e o f i nt e r e s t l a t e r i s no t the sa m e a s cash t oday, es peci al l y in l i ght o fthe City’ s his tor y ofdel ay i n m aki ng paym ents. A s f or com pensatory dam age s, w e r em ar ked t h at a perso n w hose r i ghts have been vi ol a t e d u n d e r th e d u e p r o c e s s c l a u s e ma y r e c e i v e n o mi nal dam age s i fhe o r she c annot show out- of

- pocketl oss oro therco ncre te i nj ury. Yet the Ci ty offer ed nothi ng f or fees and costs of fil ing the su it, noth ing for com p en satory d amag es ( no t ev ena do l l arf o r no m i na l da m ages), an d o nl y a pr o m i se o fi ntere st, t o whi cha “ pr ude nt l i ti gant m ay att ach a ste ep d isc ou nt, ” e speci al l y b ecause th e C ity d en ied ow in g in te re st bu t o ffer ed t o p ay it on ly as a goo d wil l ge stur e. 43 0 F
. 3d at 431. To e l i m i nate the c ontr ove rs y a nd r ender the c ase m oo t, we hel d that a d efendant m ust m eetthe pla i nti ff’ s dem ands, wh i ch th e Ci tyhe r e was unwi l l i ng to d o. To the e xt en t th e pla i nti ff s s ought an i nj uncti on r equi ring the City t o com pensate them f orpast los se s, w e r em ar ked that th ey w er e o n a s n ip e h u n t. “T h er e’s n o s u c h an im al, beyo nd the eq u itabl e r em edy o fr est i tuti on

— an d the Ci t y s t a nd s r e a dy t o h a nd o v e r the a mou nt s i ts e i z e d, i n or der t o avo i d unj ust e nri chm ent. ” 4 30 F. 3d at 432. W e co ncl ud ed that Gates an d N el son w er e a dequ ate10 N o. 08

- 1455

On D ec em ber 14 , 20 04 , the Chi c ago Pol i c e Depar t m en t 7 m od ifie d th e inv entory f orm . The cl ass act ion her e i ncludes onl y pe rs ons arr es t ed be f or e thatdat e, duri ng the t i m e the prior f orm w as in us e. r epr es en ta ti ve s to c ha l l en g e th e City’s ol d po l i ci es a nd pr ac ti ce s an d tha t th e su i t co ul d pro ce ed a s a cl as s ac ti o n. 7 A fter w e a ff irm ed the class ce rtification, th e plaintiff s w er e g ra nted l eave to fi l e a fi fth am en ded co m pla i nt. T h e fi r s tth r e e c o u n t s w e r e i n d i v i d u a l a n d c l a s s c l a i ms f orviolat ions ofdue proc ess . The r em ai ni ng co unts wer e g r o unde d i n s ta te l aw a nd i nc l ude d ind ivi duala nd cl ass cl ai m s f orco nver si on, r epl evi n, unj ust e nri chm ent, co ns tr uct i ve tr us t, de cl ar at o r y j udg m en t unde r the I l l i noi s Un i f or m Dis posi ti on o fU ncl ai m ed Pro pertyA ct ( “UDU PA”) , a nd b r ea cho ffi duci ar y duty. F o r the unj ust e nri chm ent, co nstr ucti ve tr us t, and bre ach o f fi d uc iary claim s (coll ectively th e “restitu tio n clai m s”), th e p lain tiffs so u gh t t h e r et u rn of th eir m on ey . U ltim ate l y, the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the r est i tuti on cl ai m s a nd deni ed a r equest to cer ti fy a r est i tuti on cl ass because tho se cl ai m s were m oo t. T h e courtal so gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe City o n the federa l d u e p ro c es s c laim s. T h e p lain tiffs ap p ea l.

II. On app eal, the pla i nti ff s con te n d thatthe Citywas not en tit l ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the du e pr oce ss cl a i ms b e c a u s e th e C i t y d i d n o tp r o v i d e me a n i ng fulN o. 08

- 1455 11 noti ce o fi ts i nventor y a nd p roperty r etur n proc edures, and because the Cityf ai l ed to pro vi de adequate pr oced ure s for th e r e t urn of th eir m one y. T he plaintiff s a l s o c h a l l e n g e th e d i s mi s s a l o fth e i rr e s t i t u t i o n c l a i ms and the re fusal to cer ti fy a re sti tuti on cl ass , ar gui ng th at th e n am ed p lain tiffs ret ain ed an e c on om ic in te re st in c las s c er tific at ion . Ou r re vie w o fa ll of th e is su es is deno vo . Lo bz un v. U nited Sta tes , 42 2 F
. 3d 50 3, 507 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( we r e v i e w deno vo whethe r th e gover nm en t’s notice p roced ure s com p li ed w ith d ue proc ess); E ver road v. Scott Truck Sys te m s, Inc. , 60 4 F .3d 4 71, 47 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( w e r e v i e w deno vo the d istri ct cou rt’s gran t of su m m ary j ud gm en t).

A. W e be gi n w i th the i ssue o fm eani ngful noti ce. Both the di strict court and the par ti es divi de the noti ce claims i nt o t wo c at eg o r i es : na r co ti cs a r r es ts a nd no nnarco ti cs a rr est s. A s the di str i ct c ourtnot ed, st ate l aw enti tl es al l ar re ste es to an i nventor y of the i tem s seized fro m th em . See 72 5 I LC S 5/ 108 et seq
. S ecti on 1 08- 2 pro

vi des whati s to b e do ne whenproperty i s se i ze d wi th

out a warr an t. 72 5 I LC S 5/ 108- 2. S ecti on 1 08- 10 provi des the proc ed ure w hen proper ty i s t ake n pursuant t o a w ar ra nt. 72 5 I LC S 5/ 108- 10. I n each i nstance , the pol i ce o ffi c e r s a r e r e q u i r e d t o t a k e a n i n v e n t o r y o fth e i t e ms seized , and the p erson from w hom the item s w ere s e i z e d i s e nt i t l e d t o a c o pyo ftha ti nven t o r y . 7 2 5 I LCS 5/ 108-2 a nd 72 5 I LC S 5/ 108- 10. To s ati sfy thi s r equi re m en t, the Ci t y p r o v i de s a r r e s t e e s wi th the p r o pe r ty12 N o. 08

- 1455 i nv e nt o r y r e c e i ptwe de s c r ib e ab o v e, and o n e a c h r e c e i pt i s pr i nt e d the No t i c e ( qu o t e d sup ra at 4-5) that p urpor ts to d es c rib e w h at arr e s t e e s s h ou ld d o in ord er to rec laim the i r p r o pe r t y . T he p a r t i e s s e e m to ag r e e tha ttho us a nd s ofi nventor y r ecei pts w er e i ssued f orcas h each yea r du ring the r el evantti m e per i od, and the val ue o fcas h sei zed and i nventor i ed w as m i l l i ons ofdol l ar s. T h os e a rre st ed on n ar c ot ics ch ar ge s re c eiv e a n ad d itio n al n ot ice . B y v irt u e o f a c on se n t d ec re e e n te re d in an ea rl i erfedera l sui t be tw een a n ar re ste e a nd the City, P o lla rd v . D a ley, Case N o. 87C 240 1, nar cot i cs a rr est ees ar e e nti tl ed to a “ P o l la rd N oti ce, ” a Cl ai m s Lett er m ai l ed bythe Citywi th i n n i ne tyda y s o fthe a r r es t, i nfor m in g t h e a rre st ee of th e p ro c ed u re to c laim th eir sei zed pro perty
. U nd erthe ter m s o fthe P o lla rd c o ns en t decree , nar cot i cs a rre st ees co uld r etr i eve thei r m oney b y t a k i n gth e C l a i ms L e t t e r t o th e E R P S b e t we e n 8 a . m. an d 4 p. m . , M onday thro ugh Fr i day. The P o lla rd n o ti ce w as m ai l ed to narco ti cs ar re ste es at the add ress li ste d on the i nventor y r ecei pt, w h ich nar cot i cs a rr est ees al so r ec ei ve d. Non- na r co ti cs a r r estees r ec ei ve d o nl y the i nv e nt o r y r e c e i ptwe h a v e de s c r ib e d. F o r b o thna r co tics a nd no n- na r co ti cs a r r es ts , the i nv en tor y r ecei pt l i sts thr ee possibl e di sposi tio ns f orse i zed fu n d s: (1) “ h old for in ve st iga tio n an d /or ev id en c e,” in whi chc as e the na m e an d s ta r numbe r o fthe i nv es ti g at i ng offi cerar e l i ste d; ( 2) “pro pe rty o w ner noti fi ed .

. . to picku p pr o pe r t y wi thin 3 0 da y s o r pr o pe r t y wi l l be disp osed of”; o r ( 3) “t o be di spose d ofby custo dian ( not to be retu rned ). ” F o r b oth Ga tes an d N elson, the officersN o. 08

- 1455 13

com ple ti ng the f or m chec ked the “ho l d fo r i nvest i gati on a nd /o r evi dence” bo x, even tho ugh the m oney tak en fro m them was so on deposi ted i nto bank acco unts ( th e C ity ha s o ne a cc o untf o r na r co ti cs a r r es ts a nd anothe r f ornon- narco ti cs a rr est s) wh er e i t was co
- m i ngl ed w i th o therfund s a nd thus l ostany f or ensi c va l ue as evid en ce. M oreover, in ea c h c ase, the arresting officers en g ag ed i n n o fur th eri nv es ti g ati on re l at ed to the m on ey se ize d

. T h e C ity ac kn ow led ge s th at w h en th e “ h old for in ve st igat i on” box i s che cked i n non- n ar c ot ics case s, the m oney se i ze d wi l lno t be made i m m edi at ely a vailabl e to the ar restee e ve n i fthe a r r es te e f o l l o ws the i ns tr uct i o ns (su ch as they ar e) i n the N oti ce. H owever, nothi ng o n th e inven tory rece ipt n otifies arrestees in this cate gory ofthi s fa ct, and the N oti ce g i ves the a rr est ee no cl ue as to wha t a ddi t i o na l s t e ps he mus t t a k e i n or der t o re cl ai m hi s pro perty
. A ccor ding to the C i ty, an a rr est ee i n the n o n- na r c o t i c s c a t e g o r y ma y r et r i e v e s e i z e d fun ds i n one oftwo w ays . H e m ay prese n t to the ERPS ei ther a c rim i nal co urt or der s tat i ng tha t the fund s m ay be re l eas ed ( a “ Se cti on 1 08 Order”) o r a co m ple ted Prop er ty Re l ea se Or der( CPD- 34
. 55 4) , whi chi s k no wn i n the p o l i c e d e p a r t me n t a s a “ F o r m 5 4
. ” T o o b t a i n a c o mple ted Fo rm 54 , an a rr est ee m ust r etur n to the dis tr i ct o farresta nd pr es en t th e i nv en to r y r ec ei pt to the des ks er g ea nt, who , i n tu rn, wi l l a tt empt t o c o nne ctthe ar r es te e wi ththe a r r es tingo ffi ce r . Onl y th e a r r es ting offic er ca n ce rt ify on a Fo r m 5 4 t h at th e p ro p er ty is no l onge r needed for in vest i gat i on o r evi dence. Both pl aint i ff s wer e to l d t he y ne ede d a s i g ne d F o r m 5 4 an d14 N o. 08

- 1455 both tri ed repe ated ly to con tact their arres t in g officers and we r e un a b l e t o do s o . A S e c t i o n 1 0 8 o r de r may be i ssued bythe j ud ge p re sid ing o verthe ar re ste es’ cr i m i nal case . The Ci ty presum es the a rr est ee m ust r equest th e ord er by fi li ng a m otion in th e crim inal ca s e , c h a racte ri zi ng the req uest as a de m inim is burden. The Ci ty does not describe ho w an a rr est ee m ay o btain a S ecti on 1 08 or der when no cr i m i nal char ges ar e fi l ed or whe n the c ha r g e s a r e qui c k l ydr o pp e d. F o r n a r c o t i c s a r r e s t s , the p r o c ess is mo r e c o mpl i c a t e d. As we n o t e d , n a r c o t i c s a r r e s t e e s r e c e i v e b o th a n i nv en to ryr ecei pt and, i n theo ry, a P o lla rd n o t i c e . T he A sse t Fo rfe itu re U n it (“ U n it” ) of th e P oli c e D e p ar tm en t m ails th e l at te r t o the a ddr es s l i sted fo r the a r r es te e o n the in ve n to ry rec eip t, ev en th ou gh m an y a rr e s t e es w ill sure l y no t be hom e w h en the P o lla rd not i ce a rr i ves b e c a us e a p r e di c t a b l e p e r c e nt a g e o fthe m wi l l n ot b e re lea se d on ba il an d ins te ad w ill be d et a i n e d in jail pend i ng tr i al

. The U ni t m ai l s P o lla rd not i ces onl y when the a m ount s ei zed i s l ess than $100 0, t h e Cityhas d ec lin ed to se ek forfe itu re ( an d th e C ity au to m at ica lly de c lines to see k for fei ture wh en the am ount i s l ess than $1 30 ) , a nd the mone y i s av ai l ab l e to b e r etur ne d t o the ar r es te e. As wi thno n- na r co ti cs a r r es te es, w hen the “h old for in ve st iga tio n bo x ” is ch ec ke d , th e m on e y w ill no t be r etur ned im m edi at ely t o the a r r es te e ev eni fhe f o l l o ws the i ns tr uct i o ns i n the N oti ce . Acco r di ngt o the City, nar cot i cs a rr est ees m ay re cl ai m thei r fund s by prese nti ng to t h e ER PS pro per i denti fi cati on a nd ei ther the P o lla rd notice, a not ice f r o m th e State’s A ttorn ey’s Offi ce fol l owing set tl em ent o fany f or fei ture act i on, o rN o. 08

- 1455 15

an o rderfro m the ass et f or fei ture co urt sta ti ng tha t the fund s m ay be r el eas ed. The pl ai nti ff s a sse rted that narco ti cs a rres te es coul d ret ri eve thei r fund s o nl y b y prese nti ng pro per i denti fi cati on, the P o lla rd no ti ce a nd e i th e r a n o r d e r fr o m th e a s s e tf o r fe i t u r e c o u r to r a c o mp leted Form 54. T he City con ced es it w il l not hon or a Se cti on 1 08 or der in a nar cot i cs c ase i n the abse nce o f a P o lla rd not i ce, a l ett erfro m t h e state’ s a tto rneyo r an or der fro m an a sse t for fei ture co urt . O n sum m ar y j ud gm ent, we accept the v er si on o fthe f acts sup pli ed by the par ty opposi ng j ud gm ent, so we w i l l as su m e that narco ti cs a rr est ees were re quir ed to pre sent the P o lla rd n oti ce a nd an a dd i ti onaldocum ent in or der t o cl aim th ei r mone y . The pl ain l an g ua g e o n the f ac e o fthe N oti ce s u p p or ts thi s cl ai m ; i t decl ar es w i thout quali fi catio n th at For m 54 is “r eq u ire d .” W e tu r n, the n, t o whethe r the not ic e g i ve n t o the pl ainti ff s was adequate to sat i sfy due pro cess con c erns. Both p lai nt iffs conte nd that the n otice given on the inve nt ory re cei pt i s m i sl eadi ng and ther ef ore in adequate. Both conte nd thatthe f or m lu lls the r eci pie nt i nto w ai ti ng f or ano ffi ci alno ti ce tha t ne ve r c o m es i ns te ad o fde sc r ibi ng th e C ity ’s a c t u a l p ro c ed u re s. N els on d oe s n otch all enge the conte nts o fthe P o lla rd not i ce s ent t o narco ti cs ar re st e e s b utp r o t e s t s tha tthe Ci t y f a i l e d t o ma k e r easonab l e e ff or ts to deliverthe P o lla rd not i ce t o affecte d ar re ste es. N el son, a narco ti cs a rrestee , di d not r ecei ve the P o lla rd n o t i c e d u e t o h i m a n d th e r e f o r e h a d o n l y t he N ot ice on th e in ve n to ry rec eip t t o gu id e h im . W e w ill th erefore begin w ith th e notice given on th e inv e n tory re cei pt, wh i ch w as gi ven t o allar re ste es f ro m wh om mon e y wa s s e i z e d.16 N o. 08

- 1455 1. T he City c ont en d s tha t the N otice on th e inven tory receip t is a d eq ua te un d er City of We s tCovi na v. Pe rki ns , 52 5 U. S

. 2 34 ( 19 99 )

. I n We s tCovi na , the Court consi dered “whe the r the Co ns t i t ut i o n r e qu i r e s a S t a t e o r i t s l oca l enti ti es to gi ve detailed and speci fi c i nstr ucti ons or ad vic e t o ow n er s w h o s ee k re tu rn of p ro p er ty law fu lly s e i z e d b ut no l o ng e r ne e de d f o r po l i c e i nv e s t i g a t i on o r cri m i nal pro secuti on. ” 5 25 U
. S. at23 6. The pro perty involved w as seized f rom a hom e d uring exec ut ion of a va l i d s e a r c h wa r r a n t
. T h e p o l i c e o ffi c e r s e x e c u t i n gt he war r an t se i ze d pho to g r aph s, gu ns, a m m uni ti o n a nd c a s h. T he y l e ftthe h o me’ s o c c up a nt s a f o r m t i t l e d, “Sear chW ar r an t: Not i ce o fS er vi ce ” ( he r ea fte r “ W ar r an t N oti ce”) , al ong w i th an i tem ized l i st ofthe proper ty sei zed. 52 5 U.S

. at23 6. I n its enti re ty, the W ar ra nt N oti ce r e a d: T O WHO M I T MAY C O NC E R N: 1

. T HES E P RE M I S ES HAVE BEE N SEA RC HED B Y PEACE OF F I CERS OF THE ( na m e o fsear ch i ng agen cy) W

es t C ovina P o li ceD E P AR T MENTP UR S UANT T O A SE A R C H W A R R A N T I SSU E D ON ( d ate) 5- 20- 93 , B Y T H E H O N O R A B L E ( na m e of m agistrate) D an O ki, J U D G E OF THE S UPERI OR/M UN I CI PAL COU RT, Cit r us J UD I CI AL DI S TRI CT. 2. TH E SEA RC H W A S CO N DU CT ED ON ( date) 5- 21- 93
. A L I S T O F T HE P R O P E R T Y S E I Z E D P UR S UANT TO T HE S EARC H W ARR ANT I S ATT ACHED. 3
. I F Y OU WI S H F URT HER I NF OR M ATI ON, Y OU M AY CON TAC T:N o. 08

- 1455 17 (nam e of invest igator) D e t
. Fe rrar iorD e t
. M e l nyk A T [ telep hon e nu m ber]. L T
. SCH I M A N SK I[ telep hon e nu m ber]. 525 U
. S. at23 6- 37. A l th ou gh the offi cer s di d not l eave th e w a r r a n t n u m b er , th at info rm at ion w as av aila b le in a publ i c i nde x. Shor tly a fte r the s ea r ch, Pe r k i ns , the proper ty own er, cal l ed one ofthe det ecti ves l i ste d on the W ar ra n t N ot ice see ki ng the r etur n ofthe sei zed i tem s. The detec ti ve tol d him thathe w ou l d need to o b t a i n a co urt o r de r a utho r i z i ngthe r e t urn o fthe p r o per ty. 52 5 U.S. at 2 37. Per ki ns the n w ent t o the c ourt
ho us e an d a tt emp ted to s ee the j udg e who i ss ue d the war r an t. W he n h e l ea r ne d tha t th e j udg e was o n v ac at i o n, h e t r i e d t o a s ka n o th e r j u d g e t o r e l e a s e h i s p r o p e r ty b ut w as tol d the co urt had nothi ng under Per ki ns’ nam e. Pe r k i ns the n fi l ed suit again stW es t Cov i na a nd the offi cer s wh o seiz ed hi s pro perty, al l eging vi ol ati ons of th e F o u r th A me n d me n t
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o ur t g r a n t e d s u mm ar y j udg m en t to W es t Cov i na a nd i ts o ffi ce r s but in vit ed su p p lem en ta l brie fin g on w h e t h e r th e a va ilab le r e med i e s f o r the r e t urn o fs e i z e d p r o pe r t y we r e a deq u at e t o s at isfy d u e p ro c es s. We s tCovi na , 52 5 U.S

. at23 8. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur ts ub s e qu e nt l y f o un d tha tthe r e med i es pr o v i de d b y Ca l i f o r ni a l a w f o r the r e t urn o fs e i z e d p r o pe r ty s a t i s fi e d d u e p r o c e s s . T h e c o u r to fa p p e a l s r e v e r s e d. A l though the appel l ate co urt agr eed thatst ate l aw provi ded ad equate proce du re s fo r the return ofthe proper ty, the c ou rt f ound that W estCovi na was re quir ed to gi ve pr o per tyo wner s no ti ce o fs ta te pr o ce dur es f o r the re turn of proper ty and a l so the i nfo rm ati on neede d to18 N o. 08

- 1455 invoke th ose p roced ure s, includ ing the w arran t nu m ber. 5 2 5 U. S

. a t 2 3 8

- 3 9
. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d e t a i l ed th e i nfo r mat i o n tha ts ho ul d h a v e b e e n pr o v i de d t o the p r o per tyo wner, i nc l udi ng : the f ac t o f an d da te o fthe s ea r ch, t h e a gen cy con d uc ting th e search , the d ate of the w arra nt, th e issui ng j ud ge, the cour t where that j ud ge se r ve d, pe r so ns t o b e co ntac te d f o r fur th eri nf o r m at i o n, the pr oce du re f orco ntest i ng the se i zure or retenti on o f proper ty tak en, al ong w i th any i nfo rm ati on nee ded to i ni ti ate thatpro cedure, and noti ce th at the owner m ust fi l e a wri tt enmot i o n or re que stt o the c o ur t st at i ngwhy the pr oper ty shoul d be r etur ned. 52 5 U.S

. at23 9. The Suprem e Cour t r ej ecte d th is e xpansive r equi re m en t. P er kin s ac kn ow led ge d re c eip t of a no tic e th at h is pr o pe r t y h a d b ee n s e i z e d a nd a n i nv e nt o r y o ftha tp r o per ty. U nl i ke the pl ai nti ff s her e, P erki ns r ai sed no i nd epende ntc ha l l e ng e t o the a de qu a c yo fs t a t e l a w r e med i es f o r the r etur n o fhi s pr o per ty. R athe r, Pe r k i ns c o nte n d ed thatW estCovi na depri ved hi m o fdue proc ess b y f a i l i n gt o p r o v i d e h i m noticeo fthe avai l abl e s tat e l aw r em edi es a n d the f actuali nfo rm ati on nee ded to i nvoke them

. The Courthel d that “ [ w ] hen the pol i ce se i ze pr o per tyf o r a c r i m inal i nv es ti g at i o n, ho wev er, due proc e s s do e s n o tr e qu i r e the m t o p r o v i de the o wner w ith n oti ce o fst ate
- l aw r em edi es. ” We s tCovi na , 525 U
. S. at 240. The pri m ar y purpose o fthe noti ce r equi re d by th e Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se , the Co urt no te d, i s to e ns ur e th e o ppo r tu ni tyf o r a mean i ng fulhe ar i ng . The r efo r e, due process re quir es offi cer s s ei zi ng pro pertyto “t ake r easonab l e s teps t o gi ve noti ce t h at the pr oper ty has be en tak en so the own er can pu rs ue avai l abl e re m edi es for its ret u rn .” 52 5 U .S. at 2 40
.N o. 08

- 1455 19 N o si m i l arr ati onal e j usti fi es re quir i ng i nd i vi du al i zed noti ce o fst ate
- l aw r em edi es w hi ch, l i ke thos e a t iss u e h er e, ar e e st ab lish ed by p u b lish ed , g e n er ally a v a i l a b l e s t a t e s t a t ut e s a nd c a s e l a w. On c e the pro per ty own eri s info rm ed that hi s p ro p er ty has b een seiz e d , h e c an turn to these pu bli c sou rces to learn ab o utthe r emedi alpr o ce dur es a va i l ab l e to hi m . The Cityneed notta ke othe r ste ps to i nfo rm hi m o f hi s o pti ons. 525 U
. S. at24 1. The Cou r t f o und th at i ts ho l di ngi n M em ph is Lig ht, G a s & WaterD ivisi o n v. Craft, 4 36 U. S

. 1 ( 19 78 ) , was no t to the co nt r ar y . I n M e m phi s Light, the Court hel d that when a publ i c uti l i ty w i shes to ter m i nate ser vi ce fornon- paym ent, the u t i l i t y mus tp r o v i de the c us t o merwi th an o ppo r tu ni tyt o di scu ss an y b i l l i ngdi spu te wi tha p erson w ho h as au th ority to resolve t h e disp ut e before te r m i na tingthe s ervice. 4 36 U. S

. a t 16

- 17

. Be ca us e th e i nt e r n a l a d mi n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s f o r r e s o l v i n gb i l l i ng d isp u te s w er e n otd es c rib ed in a n y p u b licly av aila b le docum ent, the C ou rt al so hel d that due pro cess r eq u ire d th e u tilit y t o in for m th e c u st om er of th e a va ila b i l i t y a nd g e ne r a l c o nt o ur s o ftho s e p r o c e du r e s . 4 36 U. S

. a t 13

- 15

. I n We s tCovi na , the Co ur tr e a d M em phis Lightt o r equi r e no ti ce o fthe pr o ce dur es f o r pr otect in g one ’s prop erty i n terest “w he n th ose p roced ure s are ar cane a nd ar e no t s et f or th in d oc um ents acces sibl e t o the publ i c. ” We s tCovi na , 525 U .S. at 2 42
. M e m ph is Light did not, howe ve r, support a g ener alr ule thatnot i ce o f rem edi es and procedure s i s r equi re d. W hen st ate l aw20 N o. 08

- 1455

re m ed ies ar e est ab lish ed b y p u b lish ed , gen er ally av aila b le sta te sta tutes and c ase l aw , no i nd i vi du al i zed not i ce of t h os e p ro c ed u re s is req u ire d

. We s tCovi na , 525 U
. S. at 24 1

. T h e A p p en d ix to th e O p in ion of th e C ou rtin Wes tCovi na c o nt a i ns a l i s t o f fe de r a l a nd s t a t e l aw s g overnin g the exec ut ion of se a r c h w arran ts an d the retu rn o f s e i z e d p r o p e r t y . 5 2 5 U. S

. a t 2 4 4

- 4 5
. Amo n g th e l a ws l i ste d i s 7 25 ILC S 5/ 108- 10, wh i ch i s o ne o fthe sta tut es l i st ed i n the Not i ce i ss ue d t o b o thN elson an d Gates w hen thei r proper ty w as sei zed. S ecti on 108- 10 add re sse s the r etur n ofpro pertyta ken purs uant to a w arran t. Section 108-2, also li sted on the inv en tory re cei pt, r e l a t e s t o the c us t o dy a nd di s po s i t i o n o fthing s se i ze d wi th o uta war r an t, the s ituati o n i n the i ns ta nt case . U nl i ke We s tCovi na , the m one y sei zed fro m Gates and N el son w as tak en witho ut a w ar ra nt duri ng an i n v e n t o r y s e a r c h i n c i d e n tt o a r r e s t
. As we no t e b e l o w, the Ci t y r e l i e s o n S e c t i o n 1 0 8

- 1 f o r a utho r i t y t o se ar ch f orand s eiz e at the t i m e o far re st the pr oce eds o fa cri m e, ar tic les u se d in t h e c rim e a n d sim ilar ite m s . W e w ill ass um e f or the purposes o fo ur di scussi on be l ow that We s tCovi na i s no t di st i ng ui sh ab l e si m p ly be ca us e th e m oneywas sei zed w i thout a warr ant. W e r ese rv e that de c i s i o n f o r a c a s e wh e r e i ti s p r e s e nt e d a nd a r g ue d. U nd er We s tCovi na , t he Ci ty w as not obl i ged to gi ve G at es an d N els on i n d ivid u aliz ed n ot ice of an y p u b licly a v a i l a b l e s t a t e l a w r e med i e s f o r the r e t urn ofthei r p r o per ty, and thus had no obl i gat i on t o dir ect the a rres te es t o S e c t i o n 1 0 8 , i fS e c t i o n 1 0 8 i s i n f a c ta n a v a i l ab l e r e medy

. The Ci tywas o bl i g ed bystatu te to i nf o r m the ar re ste es oft h e fa ct o fthe sei zure and to pro vi de anN o. 08

- 1455 21 i nventor y o fthe i tem s s eiz ed. That they di d. A l though We s tCovi na co n tr ols as to th e p ro c ed u re s s et fo r t h in st at e s ta tu te s, it d oe s n o t c on tr ol as to th e C ity ’s a d d itio n al d ifficu lt-t o-a c c es s p olic e d ep ar tm en t ru les . In add ition to the Se cti on 1 08 or der, the Cityappears to r equi r e addi ti o na l do cuments no t pr es cr ibe d b y a ny sta te sta tute. Because the Ci ty’ s a dd i ti onalpro cedures and requi re m ents ar e no t r eadi l y a cces sibl e t o the publ i c, M e m phi s Light r athe r tha n We s tCovi na c o nt r o l s, a nd the C ity m u st p ro vid e n ot ice of th e p ro c ed u re s. I n additi on t o obt ain in g a S ecti on 1 08 or der, the City re quir ed ar re ste es to tak e s teps in additi on t o ori n l i eu of that sta te l aw re m edy i f they hoped t o getth eir m one y back . T he City con ced es it w ou ld n ot hon or a S ec ti o n 1 08 o r deri n the c as e o fa na r co ti cs a r r es t an d i n c er ta i n n o n- na r co ti cs c as es , s uch as g ambl i nga nd pros ti tuti on, thatm ight al so i nvol ve f or fei ture
. A cco r di ngt o the Ci ty, no n- na r co ti cs a r r es te es r equi r ed th e inven tory rece ip t, p rop er i d en tification an d either a Fo rm 54 or a Sec tio n 10 8 o rd er in o rd er t o re tr iev e t h eir m oney . N arcoti cs a rr est ees were re quir ed to pro du ce the inventor y r ecei pt, pro per i d en tifica ti on, a For m 54 o r Se cti on 1 08 or der, an d ei thera P o lla rd not i ce, an o rder from an ass et forfeit u r e cou rt or a letter from the sta te’s att or ney’ s o ffi ce. Both pl ai nti ff s were tol d they n eed ed the F or m 54 and the desk o ffi cer s di d not m enti on Se c tio n 10 8 w h en th e p lain tiffs t rie d to rec laim th eir proper ty. A lthough the s tat e s tatutes m ake no m enti on o f“ CPD- 34
. 55 4, ” th e Form 5 4 as i t i s ca l l ed i n the pol i ce depar tm ent, the fi rs t l in e ofthe N oti ce s tat es, “P r o per tyRe l ea se Or der( CPD- 34
. 55 4) Re qui r ed. ” The For m 54 i s “ [ r] equi re d” acco rdi ng to the N oti ce, ev en22 N o. 08

- 1455

O ne ofthe Ru le 30( b)( 6) w itness es f or the City pointe d ou t that 8 there is a box to the l eft ofthe l ine requir ing the Form 54. T h a t w itness te st ifie d that the Form 54 i s requir ed only w hen thatbox i s c he c ke d. The phot oc opie s ofthe Noti c e ar e f ai nt and the box i s not v i s ibl e on thi s c our t ’ s c opi es ofthe doc um en t. M or eo v e r , t h e N otice is arr an g ed in suc h a w ay tha t a per s on m ay notr ea l i ze thatthe t wo par agr aphs f ol low i ng the F or m 5 4 s t a t e m e ntdo no tapp l y un l e s s th a tbox i s c he c ke d. Finall y, the rec ord is u ncle ar re gard ing w hether the box w as c he c ke d on ei the r pl ai nt i ff’ s i nve ntor y f or m , butboth pl ai nti ff s w ere told that Form 54 re le ase s w ere requir ed to re

t ri eve the i r m one y. though in cer tai n i nstance s i t s i m plywould not be signed by the arresting officer. 8 Th e p r o c e d u r e s th e p o l i c e d e p a r t me n ta c t u a l l y e mplo yed ar e no t a vai l abl e in docum ents that ar e publ i shed an d ge n er ally av a ilab le. T h e p ro c ed u re s d es c rib ed in th e pl ai nti ff s’ te sti m ony ( w hi ch w e a re o bl i ged to cr ed it at th is stage of th e proc eed ings) are revealed now he re except pos sibl y in the Pol i ce Depar tm ent’ s Gener al Or der s. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e Gen er alOr d ers w er e publ i sh ed and ge nera l l y a vai l abl e be cause they are ap p aren tly access ibl e d uring m ont hly p oli ce boa rd m ee tin gs . G ates II

, 50 7 F
. Supp.2d a t 916 -17

. Genera l Orders, wh ich a re wri tte n as gui des f orpol i ce o ffi cer s, a r e n o t“ p u b l i s h e d a n d g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e ” i n th e s a me se ns e th atpub l i cly e na ct ed l aws a r e publ i sh ed an d g en er al l y a vaila b l e. Rather, theyar e “ ar cane a nd ar e no t s et f or th i n docum ents acces sib le to the publ i c. ” We s tCovi na , 525 U
. S. at24 2. A n ar re ste e would h av e to kno w that th e G en eral Ord ers exist, know that they cont ain infor-N o. 08

- 1455 23

Althoughi ti s no tpart of the r ec or d, we f ound a r ec en t 9 ne wspape r ar t i c l e re gar di ng the Gene ra l Order s e nl ighte ni ng. Appare nt l y, the Gene ra l Order s ar e due for a m aj or ove rh aul m e a ntt o reduc e the vo l ume, r e m ov e o bs ol e t e r ul e s a nd a dd cl a ri ty
. S ee“F irst Tim e in 40 Y ear s: C op s’ R u l e B o o k G ets a M a k eo v er : ‘ I t ’s a m es s.’ 16 -in ch sta ck to b e t h in n ed d o w n .” ht t p: //ww w. s unt i m es . c om /ne ws/m etro /21 00 60 1, CST- N W S- c op ru les14 .article ( last v isited Sep tem b er 22 , 20 10 ). “It’ s a m ess, ” is a quot e from the Depa rt m en t ’ s di re c t or ofpol i c e re s ea rc h a nd dev elop m ent divisi on. A sergeantw ho uses the G eneral Order s e ver y d ay s t at ed, “You r ea d the s e ge ne ra l or der s an d y o u r e y e s s t a r t b l e e di n g . T h e y ’ r e s o b o r i n g . ” A p o l i c e and c i vi l i an t ea m ai m s t o r educ e the s i ze ofthe 16

- i nc h s t ac k of or der s by t wo- thi rds , ac c or di ng t o the ar t i c l e. The ban al i t y of the G eneral O rders and the ennui they induce in r ead ers ar e notati s s ue he re , of co ur s e. The pr obl em with us i ng the General Order s as no t i c e ofthe pr oc edur es f or r ec l ai m i ng s ei ze d funds i s thatth ey are no tge ne ra l l y a vai l abl e t o the pu blic i n the sam e s ense as p u b lished statutes
. They are m ore l i ke the ar c ane r ul es r efer en c ed i n M emphi s Light

. m at i o n r eg ar di ngthe r ecov er y o fmone y s ei ze d dur i ng ar re st, k now wh er e a nd wh en to fi nd them , and then b e ab l e t o di s c e r n f r o m do c um en t s i nt e nd e d t o g ui de pol ice offi cer s what theyas ar re ste es shoul d do to re cove r thei r m oney . Thi s i s cl ear l y di sti nguish abl e fro m 9 th e publ i sh ed, g en er al l y a va i l abl e s ta tu te s, a nd thus We s tCovi na do es no t co nt r o lthe o ut co m e. Be ca us e th e proce du re s w er e a rca ne and not gener al l y a vai l abl e, un d er M e m phi s Light, th e C ity w as t h u s ob lige d to te ll ar re ste es how to ge t thei r m oneybac k. T he N otice given to arrestees w ith th e inve n t o ry re cei pt does not adequatel y i nfo rm ar re ste es of the pro-24 N o. 08

- 1455 cedures to re tr i eve thei r m oneyand t h us does not co m po r t wi thdue pr o ce ss . Af te r o urr ev i ew o fthe re c or d , th e C i t y ’s p ro c ed u re s fo r ar re st ee s t o re c laim thei r cash r em ai n uncle ar . W hen t h e pl ai nti ff s f ol l owed t h e d i r e c t i v e t o r e t u r n t o th e p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o r f o r ms an d i ns tru ctions to reclai m thei r prop erty, th ey w ere told t h e y n eed ed the Form 54 bu t the de sk officers did notm enti on S ecti on 10 8 or ders, o rder s fro m as set forf e iture cou rts or l etters from the sta te’s attorn ey’s o ffi ce . T he Ci ty ’ s N o ti ce di d no t i nf o r m a r r es te es o fthe i nter nal pol i ce depar tm ent pr oce du re s which a pp earto ha ve act ua ll y go v e r ne d the p roced ure f or the retu rn o fpr o per tys ei ze d dur i nga n a r r es t. Nothi ngo n the N oti ce info rm ed non- narco ti cs a rr est ees thatth ey w oul d r equi re the i nventor y r ecei pt, pro per i denti fi cati on and ei thera For m 54 o r a S ecti on 1 08 or d er . N othi ng o n th e N ot ice info rm s n ar c ot ics arr es te es th at th ey w ill re q u ire th e in ve n to ry r e c eip t, p ro p er id en tific at ion , a Form 5 4 or S ecti on 1 08 or der, and ei thera P o lla rd noti ce, an o rderfro m an a sse t for fei ture c ou rto r a l ett er f ro m the sta te’ s a tto rney ’ s o ffi ce. N ot h in g on th e N ot ice te lls ar re st ee s t h a t i fth e “ h old f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d / o r e v i d e n c e ” b o x i s c h e c k e d , the subsequent i nstr ucti ons to re turn t o the pol i ce s tat i on w i th the i nventor y for m wil l be i neffi caci ous, atl eas t unti l the c rim i nal cas e has co ncl ud ed and the t i m e f or for feit u re h as ex p ire d . U n d e r th os e c irc u m st an c es , foll o wi ngth e i ns tr uct i o ns o n the r ec ei pt bys ee k i ngthe si gnature of an ar re sti ng o ffi cero n a F or m 54 Pro perty Rel eas e Orderi s a futi l e pursui t be cau se the pr oper ty w i l l not be avai l abl e f or i m m edi ate re l eas e. T h e N ot i ceN o. 08

- 1455 25 al so i nd i cate s that “ offi ci alnot i fi cati on” that the pr oper ty i s a v a i l a b l e f o r r e l e a s e wi l l b e f o r thc o mi nge v e n though th e C ity neve r i ssu es su ch a notice, even i n ca ses w he re it d eterm ines th at th e p rop erty is not su bj ect to fo rfei tu re an d i s no t n e c essary for i nv estigation or evide nt iary p urp oses. A lthou gh the C ity w as n o t obli ged to i nform ar re ste es about pu bl i cl y pu bl i shed sta te l aw r em edi es, th e C ity m a y n ot m isl ead arrestees ab ou t the nec essary proc e du r e s f o r the r e t urn o f the i r mon e y o r l ul l them in to p a ss ive ly w ait in g for offic ial n ot ifica tio n . On th is re cor d, i t a pp ear s the Ci ty’ s instr ucti ons w er e a m odel ofm i sdir ecti on. A l though publ i shed sta te sta tutes quali fy a s be i ng readi l y avai l abl e to the publ i c, docum ents that ar e a vai l abl e a t a m onthl y Po l i ce Boa rd M eet i ng, al though t echni cal l y a vailabl e t o the publ i c i n a l i m i ted w ay, cannotsa ti sfy due pro cess not ice re quir em ents. S um m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o f th e Ci ty o n the i ssue of notice suf fi cient to satisfy d ue proc ess w as p rem atu re g i v e n t ha tth e N o t i c e p r o v i d e d mi s l e a d i n ga n d i n c o mpl et e i nf o r m at i o n.

2. F o r n arco ti cs a r r es te es , the r e i s ana ddi ti o na l due proce ss notice i ssue. A ccor ding to N el son, the P o lla rd not ice i s m ail ed to the ad d ress listed on th e inven tory r ec e i p t
. T h i s a d d r e s s i s p r o v i d e d b y th e a r r e s t e e a t th e ti m e o fthe a r r es t. Nel so n c ha ll eng es whethe r mai l i ng thi s n o t i c e t o the a ddr e s s g i veno n the i nv e nt o r y r e c e i pt s a t i s fi e s the r e qu i r e men t s o fdu e p r o c e s s . He c o nt e nd s that a pre dict abl e per centag e o far re ste es w i l l notbe26 N o. 08

- 1455 ab l e to make b ai l a nd w il l be i n j ai l a t th e ti m e th e P o l la rd n o t i c e i s ma i l e d t o th e i r l a s th o me a d d r e s s . The Ci tyi s wel l a war e th ats o m e ar r es te es wi l l no t be f o und at hom e be cause the Ci ty i tse l fdel i ver s the ar re ste es to the j ai l

. Nel so n a r g ue s th at, b efore s en di ngthe P o lla rd not ice, the Citysho uld t ake the add i ti onalst ep ofcheck i ng the websi te ofthe Sher i ff’ s Departm ent t o det er m i ne i fthe a r r es te e is in jai l, a nd i fs o , de l i ve r the P o lla rd not i ce t o the a rr est ee i n j ai l

. N el son a lso ar gues th a t, i f th e C ity uses th e ad d ress li sted on th e inven tory re cei pt i n the firs t instance , the Cityi s obl i ged to ta ke the a d d itional st ep ofcheck i ng the S heri ff’ s websi te to det er m i ne i fthe a r r este e i s atthe j ai l a nd f o r war d the noti ce there i fthe fi rs t P o lla rd no ti ce is r etur ne d t o the Ci t y a s u nd e l i v e r e d. Du e pr oce ss re quir es, ata m i ni m um , that“depri vati on ofl i fe, l iber ty orpro pertyb y a dj ud i cati on be pre ceded byno ti ce a nd o ppo r tu ni tyf o r he ar i nga ppr o pr iate t o the nature o fthe case . ” M ul l anev. C ent r al Hanov e rBank & Tru s tCo. , 33 9 U.S

. 30 6, 31 3 (1 950)

. That no ti ce m ust be “r eas onabl y c al cul ate d, und erall the ci rcum sta nces, to appri se i nter est ed parti es ofthe pend ency ofthe acti on and aff ord them an o pp or tuni ty to prese nt the i r obj ecti ons. ” M ul l ane, 339 U .S. at 3 14

. T h e q u es tio n h er e is w hethernot ice i ni ti al l y s ent t o the ho m e a dd re ss of a rre st ee s, a n u m b er of w h om p re d i c t a b ly re m ain in c u st od y, is re as on ab ly c alc u lat ed to rea c h th em . Th er e is a r i sk ( w hi ch w e can not quanti fy o n thi s r eco rd) that incarc erated pers ons w il l ne ver see n otice s that w ere sent to their h om es, i n so m e ca ses bec ause the no ti ce w i l l be re turned as undeli ver abl e a nd i n other case sN o. 08

- 1455 27 because o therper sons l i vi ng i n the h om e wil l not for w ar d the not i ce t o an i ncarc er ate d arr est ee. A r el ate d questi on i s w h et h er m ai l i ngs r etur ned by the posto ffi ce re q u ire a c h ec k of t h e Sh er iff’ s w e b sit e a n d a p os sib le seco nd m ai ling under the M ul l anes ta nda r d. The pl ainti ff s p o i nto uttha tthe r e i s s o me a g r e e men tbet w een th e par ti es o n the b as i c pr i nc i pl es at pl ay . The pl aint i ff s a g r e e tha tthe n o t i c e n e e d n o ta c t ua l l y r e a c h i ts i ntended tar getso l ong as i t i s r eas onabl y c al cul at ed to do so . D usen bery v . U nited Sta tes , 53 4 U.S

. 16 1 ( 2002 ) ( actualnot i ce i s not r equi re d so l ong as the c hose n m eth od of giving notic e i s reason ably certain to inform th os e a ffec te d ); Ho v . Do nova n , 5 69 F.3d 67 7, 680 (7th Cir. 2009 ) ( sam e)

. The defendants ag re e tha t a n ot i ce m ay not be s ent t o the a rr est ee’ s ho m e i fthe Cityaffi rm ati vely k no ws the a r r es te e i s i n j ai l b ec au se s uc h a mai l i ng i s no t r eas onabl y c al cul ate d to re ac h t he i ntended tar get
. Robi ns on v. Hanrahan , 4 09 U. S

. 3 8, 39 ( 19 72 ) ( wher e th e St ate m ai l s a ve hi cl e f or fei ture n ot ice to the a dd re ss w here the vehi cl e i s r egi ste re d even though t h e S tat e knows the tar geto fthe m ai l i ng w as not at that add re ss and al so knows he wil l n ot b e ab le t o getto thataddress because he i s co nfined i n j ai l, thatnot i ce was notr easo nabl y c al cul at ed to a ppr i se the v eh i cl e o wnero fthe pend ency ofthe f or fei ture pro ceedi ngs)

. N el son note s that, i n narc oti cs c ase s where cri m i nal pro cee d i ngs have been i ni ti ate d against the ar restee whose pro perty h as be e n s e i ze d , th e C ity is aw ar e o f a sig n ifica n t p os sibi l i ty that the a rr est ee i s in sta te cu stody and w i l l notbe at hom e t o re cei ve the P o lla rd n ot ice . N els on ac kn ow ledg es th a t n o t a l l a r r e s t e e s a r e i n j a i l a t th e t i m e th e28 N o. 08

- 1455 P o lla rd no ti ce i s m ai l ed, a nd thus c o nc ede s th atthe Ci ty canno t k no w the a r r es te e’ s wher eabo ut s wi th o ut i nqui r y, b utc o nt en ds th e Ci ty ca n e as i l y c he ckthe She riff’ s w ebsite to d eterm ine if the arreste e is incarcer ate d before sendi ng the not i ce. A t the ve ryl eas t, N el so n a sserts , the Ci tys ho ul d b e r equi r ed to c he ckthe Sher i ff’ s websi te i fthe fi rs t a ttem p ted m ai l i ng i s r eturned as undeli ver ed. I ft h e arre ste e i s in j ai l, the City shoul d be r equi re d to m ai l the P o lla rd no ti ce t o the j ail, N els on p os its
. M ul l anespeci fi es that the m eans ofdel i ver y “ em plo yed m us t be s ucha s o ne de si r o us o fa ctua l l y i nform i ngthe ab se nt ee m ightr ea so nabl y a do pt to a cc o m pl i shi t. ” The pu rpos e o fnot i ce under the Due Pr oce ss C lau se is to appri se i nter est ed pa rt ies of the pendency o fan a cti on th at m ight d ep rive them of th eir p rop e r t y a n d aff ord th em ano pp o r tu ni tyt o pr es en t th ei r o bj ec ti o ns . The pu rpos e o fthe P o lla rd not i ce i s t o i n for m t he o w ner th at forfeiture w il l not be s ou gh t and that the fun d s are avai l able t o be r etur ned to the o w ner. But i fthe own er f ails to r ecl ai m pro pertywithi n a c er tai n num bero fdays afte r re cei vi ng not i ce o fi ts re l eas e, the i nventory r ecei pt N oti ce warns that the “ proper ty w i l l be l ega ll y di sposed of acco rdi ng to the dir ecti on of l aw .” The P o lla rd not ice i s not th e o n ly not ice rel ating to p rop erty seizure re cei ved by narco ti cs a rr est ees . N ar cot i cs a rr est ees al so r e c e i v e th e i n v e n t o r y r e c e i p t, wh i c h c o n t a i n s i ts o wn N ot ice re gar ding how to pro ceed wh en pro pertyhas been sei zed a t th e t i m e o far re st. That Noti ce i s handed t o th e a r r e s t e e a tth e t i me ofth e a r r e s t, b u ta s we not ed abo ve , tha t N o ti ce i s no t ade qua te o n thi s r ec o rdN o. 08

- 1455 29
to appri se narco ti cs a rr est ees o fthe proce du re s nec essary to re cl ai m thei r m oney . M or eov er, the P o lla rd not i ce i s m or e than j u st a n ot ice; i t i s a docum ent r equi re d to re tr i eve the proper ty that has been sei zed. The C ity ha s c o n c e d e d th a t i t wi l l n o t r e l e a s e th e p r o p e r t y i n a narco ti cs c ase unles s the ar re ste e pr ese nts the P o lla rd noti ce, an o rderfr om an a sse t for fei ture co urt ora l ett er from the s ta te ’ s at to r ne y ’ s o ffi ce . I n a c as e wher e th e Ci t y d e c i d e s n o tt o s e e kf o r fe i t u r e , th e r e wi l l b e no or der fro m an a sse t for fei ture co urt an d n o l ett erfro m th e st at e’ s attorn ey ’ s o ffi ce s et tl i ngthe f o r fei tu r e. The P o lla rd not i ce then becom es the m osti m port ant v ehi cl e, if no t t h e o n ly v e h icle , for th e a rre st ee to rec laim h is m on ey . T h e re cor d does no t t el l us the co st to the Ci ty of ch ec k i ngthe S he rif f’ s webs i te b efo r e m ai l i ngthe Poll ard n o t ic e , or th e cost of chec king it only after a not ice has be e n retu rned as un d eli vered

. I t is th e C ity’s burden to dem onst ra te that th e noti ce pr ovi ded i s a deq u at e for th e pu rp os es of d u e p ro c es s. Whit ing v. U nited Sta tes , 2 31 F
. 3d 70 , 7 7 ( 1s t Cir. 2 000 ) ( th e g o ve r nm en t m ust s how , i fthe i ssue i s co ntest ed, t h at the no ti ce w as m ail e d t o t h e p ris on in w h ich th e c laim an t w as in f ac t be i nghe l d)

. Ge ne r al l y, wri tt enno ti ce mai l ed to the c l a i ma n t ’ s r e s i d e n c e s a t i s fi e s d u e p r o c e s s e v e n i ft he n ot ice is n otac tu ally rec eiv ed

. K recio ch v. U nite d S ta tes , 22 1 F
. 3d 97 6, 9 80 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)

. At th e sa m e ti m e, due p ro c es s i s no t s ati sfi ed i fthe noti fyi ng par ty knew or had reaso n t o know that no ti ce woul d be i neffecti ve. Garc i a v. M eza , 23 5 F
. 3d 287, 29 0 ( 7th Ci r. 200 0); K re cioch , 2 2 1 F
. 3 d a t9 8 0
. G i v e n th a tth e C i t y kn o ws th a ts o me30 N o. 08

- 1455

There are a num ber ofreason s, ofcours e, thata noti ce 10 m i gh tbe r e t ur ne d a s un de l i ve r a bl e . Th e a r r e s t e e m a y ha ve m oved , or m ay hav e given a fa ls e add res s in the fir stplace

. T h e qu estion her e is w he the r the no tice is reason ab ly ca lcula ted t o reac h the tar get. W hen the se nd er ofthe noti ce h a s it se lfdeli vered the i ntended rec ipie nt t o j ail, j ail i s cer t ai nl y on e ofthe l i ke l i es tpl ac es t o fi nd thatt ar get i fm ai l s en t to the hom e add res s is returned by the postoffic e. ar re ste es w i l l be i n j ail w hen the P o lla rd n o t i c e i s ma i l e d, w e a re r el uctant to fi nd as a m at tero fl aw that no ti ce mai l ed to the ho m e o fthe a r r es te e sa ti sfi es the M ul l anest andard, es peci al l y in case s w h er e the not i ce is r etu rned a s u n d eli vered

. A t tha t po int, th e C ity’s ge n er al k n ow led ge th at so m e a rre st ee s w i l l be in jail b ec om es m or e s p ec ific: this arr es te e is qu ite p os sib ly in j ail. K re ici och , 2 21 F
. 3d at9 80-81 ( th e g o ve r nm en t 10 vi ol ate s du e proce ss w hen i t pu rpos el y m ai l s no tice off orfeiture to the c l ai m ant’ s r esi dence kno w i ng tha t the cl ai m ant i s inca rce ra ted or i n federa l custody)

. “A r easonab l e perso n prese nted w i th a l ett er that ha s been re tu rn ed to se n d er w ill ord in ar ily at te m p t t o r e s e n d it i fi t i s pra cti cabl e t o do so

. ” Sm a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 13 6 F
. 3d 13 34, 1 33 7 ( D.C. C ir. 1 99 8)

. A per so n “ des i r o us ofactu ally inf or m i ng” the ar re ste e would l i kel y t ake th at se c on d st ep an d c h ec k th e Sh er iff’ s w e b s ite
. Sm all , 136 F. 3d at 1337( w hen the gov er nm ent knows, o r can eas i l y a scer tai n, wh er e a per son m ay b e found, i t m ust dir ec t its noti ce there , and not to som e o theraddress wher e th e des i g ne e f orm er l y r es i ded)

. Al th o ug h the Cityco m pla i ns thatthe Sheriff’s w ebsi te conta i ns a dis-N o. 08

- 1455 31 cl ai m err eg ar di ngthe a cc ur ac y o fthe d at a o n the sit e, th e us e of th at sit e to loc at e th e arre st e e w ou ld l i k e l y s a t i s fy the Ci ty’ s duty t o r e a s o nab l y a t t e mpt d eli very given t h e C ity’s aw aren ess th at som e pe rce nt ag e o fa r r es te es w i l l no t be ho m e to r ec ei ve the not ices bu t w il l be in c u s t o d y. A s even the p lai nt iffs concede, actual notice is notnece ssa ryi fthe Cityta kes st eps tha t ar e “r ea so nabl y c al cul at ed” t o pr o vi de th e n ot ice . On th is re c or d , w e c an n otsa y t h at m ailin g on ly to the a ddr e s s g i v e n a tthe t i me o fa r r e s ti s a de qu ate for d u e p ro c e ss p u rp os es w h en th e C ity h as av aila b le a s eem i ngl y l ow-cos t o pti on f orl oca ti ng ar re ste es like ly to be in jail. S ee K rec ioch , 2 21 F
. 3d at9 80 ( when a cl ai m an t i s i nc ar ce r at ed o r in gover nm en t cus to dy, the ea se of lea r n i n g t h e c laim an t’s loc at ion m ak es it in m ostcas es unreas onabl e f orthe f or feiti ng ag ency to fail t o a sc er ta in th e loc at ion of on e itkn ow s t o b e in gov er n m en t cust ody)

. “Ofco urse , i fse nd i ng the l ett er again w oul d requi re an ‘ i m pract i cabl e a nd exte nd ed se ar c h ’ fo r i ts ad d re ss ee , M ul l ane, 33 9 U.S

. at31 7, 70 S

. Ct. a t 65 9, th ena r ea so nabl e per so n wo ul d no t tr y a g ain, an d d u e p ro c es s d oe s n otreq u ire an ot h er a t te m p t.” Sm all , 136 F. 3d at13 37
. Se eal s o L ob zun , 4 2 2 F
. 3 d a t50 7 (alt h ough there i s no per ser ul e i mpo s i nga n a ffi r mat i ve du ty on th e gov er nm ent t o see k o ut cl ai m ants i n each ca se wher e th e i ni ti alno ti ce i s r eturned undel i ve r ed, the co ur t m us t dec i de o n a c as e- spe ci fi c basi s whethe r the M ulla nes t a n d a r d i s me t, c o n s i d e r i n ga l l o fth e c i r c u mst an ce s o fea ch c ase to d ete r m i ne whethe r the no ti ce pr o vi ded i s r ea so nabl y c al cul at ed to appr i se the cl ai m ant o fpending proce edi ngs)

. Our co urt has de-32 N o. 08

- 1455 cl i ned to adopt a per seru le t h at ex am in es n ot ice on ly at the t i m e i t was se nt and i gnor es subsequent ev en ts. G arci a , 235 F.3d at29 1. A t t h e s am e t im e,
w e a l so decl i ne to im pose an affi rm ati ve du ty up on the g ove rnm ent t o see k o ut cl ai m ants in e ac h cas e w here i ts i ni ti alnot i ce is returned undeli ver ed or t o r e q u i r e a c t u a l n o t i c e i n e v e r y c a s e . I n s t e a d , we b elie ve th e c or re c t a p p ro ac h is a fa c t-s p e c ific a n aly sis under th e d ue pr o ce ss s ta nda r d s etf o r thb y the S upr eme Co ur t i n M ul l ane, wh i c h r equi re s us to con side r al l th e circum stan ces of each case to d eterm in e w h et h er th e n ot ice p ro vid ed is re as on ab ly ca l cul at ed to a ppr i se the c l ai m an t o fthe i m pen di ng proce edi ng. G arci a , 235 F. 3d at 291. The pla i nti ff s cl ai m th at for ty p ercen t of P o lla rd no ti ce s m ai l ed ar e r etur ne d t o the pol i ce depar tm ent undel ivered. The Ci ty does not w i sh to b ea r the e xpe ns e o fthe a ddi ti ona l s ea r cho fthe Sher i ff’ s websi te and a poss ibl e s eco nd m ailing because the am ounts at i ssue ar e s o sm al l

. But the Cityexpects cl ai m ants to re peatedl y r etur n to the p olic e s tat i on f or i ns tr uct i o ns a nd f o r the e l us i ve hun t f o r the a r r es ting offic er ’ s s i g n at u re on th e F or m 54 , in ord er to rec laim thos e sam e sm al l am ounts. A n d th e P o lla rd l ett eri s no t si m plynot i ce b ut also the m eans by w hi ch ar re ste es m ay re cl ai m t h eir m oney . The pre dict abl e r esul t i s that m il li ons of d oll ars rem ain un claim ed i n t he City’s coffers each yea r. W e ca nnot co ncl ud e o n thi s r eco rd that ar re ste es ar e wil l i ngl y abandoni ng m i l l i ons ofdol l ar s; i t i s j ust a s l i kel y that they do n ot c lai m thei r m oneyN o. 08

- 1455 33 because theydo notknow h ow o r because theyhave not re cei ved a P o lla rd n o t i c e o r b e c a us e the Ci t y h as ma de th e proc ess obtu se a n d u nrea son ably d iffi cu lt. I t is m ore like ly th at arr es te es d o n otkn ow h ow to ret rie ve th eir m o ne y b e c a u s e th e C i t y ’ s n o t i c e i s mi s l e a d i n g a n d , i n a cer tai n cl ass o f cas es, i s no t r eas onabl y c al cul ate d to re ac h it s t ar ge t. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtw as p re m at u re in hol di ngtha tthe i nv e nt o r y r e c e i ptNo t i c e wa s a de qu a t e, an d in fin d in g t h at n o m o r e t h an th e in itia l P o lla rd mai l i ngt o the a ddr e s s l i s t e d o n the i nv e nt o r y r e c e i pt w as req u ire d for n ar c ot i c s a rre st ee s. T h e c ou rtsh ou ld al so have conside red the Ci ty’ s know l edge that a pre di ct ab l e number o f ar r es te es woul d no t be ho m e, a nd sh o ul d ha ve wei g he d the pr ac ti cabil ity o fc he ck i ngthe Sher i ff’ s websi te and m aki ng a seco nd m ai l i ng.

B. Befo re we proce ed to the m er i ts ofthe i nadequ ate proce du re s i ssue, we m ust a dd re ss the City ’ s co ntenti on th at th e plaintiff s w aived an y c lai m that they w ere enti tled t o prom pt post- depri vati on hea rings b y no t raisi ng this i ssu e in the d istri ct cou rt. T h e plaintiff s m ad e c lea r se v e r a l tim es in t h e d ist ric t c ou rtth at th eir du e pr oce ss cl ai m enco m passed bo th a l ack ofnot i ce about the pr oce du re s f orthe re turn o fth eir pro perty an d th e in ad eq u ac y of t h e p ro c ed u re s t h em se lve s. In part, the pla i nti ff s a rg u ed t h at the Ci ty f ai l ed to es tabl i sh i ts ri ght t o continue to detain thei r p ro p erty thro ugh a pos t- depri vati on hea ring an d yet a l so w oul d not34 N o. 08

- 1455

re tu rn th eir p ro p er ty
. Se e, e . g. , R. 17, at 2 ( “F o ur th , De fen dan ts v i o l at e th e Fou rth A m en dm en t bys ei zinga nd d etainin g prop erty w ithou t secu ring a p ost-seizure fi nd i ng o fpro babl e ca use t o detai n i t.” ); Id . at 6 (“[ I ]t i s i m port ant t o note the du alas pects ofPl ai nti ff s’ pro ced u ra l d u e p ro c es s c laim . Th e firs t . . . i s a co n st itu tio n ally defe cti ve noti ce. The se cond aspecto fthe proce du ra l du e pr oce ss cl ai m r el ate s t o Defe nd ants ’ f ai l ure to offer a con st it ut ionall y pe rm issible ad m inistrative rem ed y.”) ; R. 3 17-1, a t 10

- 11 ( no tingthe dua l a spe ct s o fthe due proce ss cl ai m , and al so noti ng tha t the “Ci ty never thel ess r eta i ns the i nven to ri ed cash, f ai l s t o send noti ce the pr oper ty is ava i l abl e f orpi ck up , and neverse eks j ud i c i a l a pp r ova l of i t s c o nt i nu e d d e t e nt i o n o fthe p r o per ty. ”)

. W e underst and the pl ain tiff s’ ar gum ent t o be th at th ey w er e e n t i tle d to th e im m ed iat e re tu rn of th eir m oneyatthe concl usi on o f t h e cri m i nal cas es aga i nst the m a nd a ft e r the t i me f o r f o r fe i t ur e ha d pa s sed be

ca us e th e C i tyf ai l ed to e st ab l i sha ny r i g htt o c o nt i nue ho l di ngthe m o ne y . The Ci tyf ai l ed to e st ab l i sha r i g ht to de ta i n the mone y i n pa r t be ca us e t he r e was no prom p t post- depri vati on hea ring. The pl ai nti ff s hav e no t s o ught a pr o mptp o s t
- de pr i v a t i o n he a r i nga s a r e med y b u t ra th er arg u ed th at th ey w er e e n tit led to ge t t h eir m o ne y b ac ki n the abs en ce o fa ny su chhe ar i ng . The Ci tydo es no t see m t o de ny tha t i t ha d no c l ai m o n the pla i nti ff s’ pro pertyafterthe concl us i on o fthe cri m i nal c a s e s a nd a ft e r the t i me f o r s e e k i ngf o r fe i t ur e e xpir ed, and i n f act conte nd s th at it never“s ei zed” the pl ai nti ff s’ proper ty at al l but m er el y “ re covere d ” i t, a conte nti on th ati s co ns i st en t wi ththe pl aint i ff s’ c l ai m . The pl ain-N o. 08

- 1455 35 ti ff s’ ar gum ent r ega rdi ng a pro m pt post- depri vati on h e a r i n g, alt h ou gh n otalw ay s c lea rly ex p re ss ed , i s s im p ly part ofthei r l ar ge r ar gum ent that the pro cedures f or th e r etur n o fthe i r mone y wer e i na dequa te , a n i ss ue w hi c h the y c l e a r l y p r e s e r v e d. We wi l l the r e f o r e p ro ceed to the m er i ts ofthe i ssue. W e hav e a l re ady co ncl ud ed that not ice ofthe proce du re s f orr ecl ai m i ng se i zed m oneym ay be inadequ ate an d th at th e di st r i ct co ur t was pr ematur e i n grant i ng j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe Cityo n that poi nt. W e no w consi der whether the pr oce ss i tse l fwas a d equate to sat i sfy the Consti tuti on. The r eco rd is r epl ete with f actualdi sputes about w hat th e Ci ty re quir es ofar re ste es seeking return of th eir m one y and w he th er the C ity’s st at ed p ro c ed u re s a n d re m e d ies are ac tu ally av aila b le to arrestees . G a tes an d N elson con ten d that the C ity’s proce du re was i l l usor y a nd thatthe si gned Form 54 was e ss en ti al l y unobt ainabl e. T he y c o m pl ain tha t th e C ity h as im p ro p er ly in ve rt ed th e b u rd en of p ro of in re quir i ng ar re ste es to obt ai n or ders proving the i r enti tl em ent t o t he i r mone y . I fthe Ci tywi sh es t o r et ain the m oneyf ol l owing the c oncl usi on o fcr i m in al procee dings , Gates and N el son conte nd , then th e Ci ty m ust s eek j udi ci ala utho r i zati on al l o wi ngthe Ci tyt o do s o . The Ci tyc i te s S ec ti o ns 1 08

- 2, 1 08

- 10 a nd 1 08

- 11 a s pr o vi d in g ana vai lable s ta te s ta tu to r y pr o ce ss a nd a r g ue s th atthe burden on ar re ste es ofr eq uesti ng a cri m i nal co urt or der re l eas i ng i nventor i ed proper ty i s de m inim is

. Th e Ci ty al so c i te s S ec ti o n 1 08

- 1 as a ut hority f o r s ei zingthe m oneyi n the fi rs t pl ace.36 N o. 08

- 1455 Se cti on 1 08- 1 pro vi des i n re l evantpart : S e a r c h w ith ou t w ar ra n t. (1) W h en a law fu l arr es t is effected a pe ac e o ffi ce r may r ea so nabl y s ea r chthe p er s o n arrested and the area w ithin su ch pers on’s im m ed iate prese nc e for th e pu rp ose of: ( a) Pro tect i ng the o ffi cerfro m at tack; o r ( b) Pre venti ng the per son f ro m es capi ng; o r ( c) Dis cove ring the frui ts ofthe cri m e; o r ( d) D isc ove ring anyi nstr um ents, ar ti cl es, o r thi ngs w hich m ay ha ve bee n u sed i n th e co m m issi on of, orwh i ch m ay const i tute evi dence of, an o ffense. 7 2 5 I L C S 5 / 1 0 8

- 1

. T h e C i t y a r g u e s t h a tS e c t i o n 1 0 8

- 1 a l l o ws o ffi c e r s t o s e a r c h a r r e s t e e s f o r f r u i t s o fth e c r i me , o r i t e ms th at con stitut e evid en ce of th e crim e or item s th at w ere used i n com m i tting the cr i m e. Rel eas i ng such pr oper ty b efo re th e Sta te h as d ec id ed w h et h er to u se it a s e vidence orthe cr i m i nal co urt has r el eas ed i t would co ntra
vene these purposes , the Ci ty ar gues. To e nsure that pr o per tyi s no t r el ea se d pr ematur ely, the Ci tyr ea so ns th at it m ay requ ire arrestee s t o pres en t either a cou rt o r dero r a F o r m 5 4 ex ecute d b y the a r r es tingo ffi ce r . The pl a i nt i ff s , h o we v e r, a r e n o ts e e k i ngr e t urn o fth e i r fun ds du ring the pendency ofcr i m i nal p ro ceedi ngs. The cl ass co ns i st s o fa rre st ee s whos e cr i m i na l c as es ha ve c o ncl ud ed and f o r who m the t i m e f o r f o r fei tu r e ha s ex pi r e d. Bu tthe r e l e v a nc e o fS e c t i o n 1 0 8

- 1 a s a s o urce of a u th or ity for h ol d i n g t h e p ro p er ty is q u es tio n ab le o nc e the c rimi na l c as es a r e co nc l ude d. At tha t po i nt, the Cityi s e sse nti al l y a rguingthat it w as enti tl ed to shi ft t oN o. 08

- 1455 37 the a rr est ee the a dm i ni str ativ e bur den ofke epi ng tr ack of w h et h er th e m on ey w as st ill ne ed ed in a p ro se c u tio n . Re ca l l tha t Secti o n 1 08

- 2 pr o vi des whati s to b e do ne when pr o per tyi s se i ze d wi th o ut a war r an t. I n tha t i nsta nce: A n i n ve ntor y o fal l i nstr um ents, ar ti cl es orthi ngs sei zed on a s ear ch w i thout warra nt shal l be gi ven t o the per son ar re ste d and a copy there ofdel i ver ed to th e j udg e be f o r e whom the pe r so n a r r es te d i s ta k en, a nd the r e a ft e r, s uc h i ns t r ume nt s , a r t i c l e s o r thi ngs shal l be hand led and di spose d ofi n acco rdance w i t h Sec tio n s 1 08 -11 an d 10 8-1 2 o f th is C od e. I f t he perso n a rrested is released w ith o ut a cha rge being preferred aga inst h im a ll in strum ents, artic les or thin gs seiz ed, oth er tha n co ntra ba nd, s ha ll be returned to h im up o n relea se. 725 I LC S 5/ 10 8-2 (em phasi s a dd ed). S ecti on 1 08- 10 provi des the proce du re wh en pro perty is ta ken purs uant to a warr ant: A r etur n ofal l ins tr u m ents, ar ti cl es orthi ngs s ei zed sh al l b e m ade wi th o utunn ec es sa r y de l ayb efo r e th e j ud ge i ssui ng the warran t or befor e a ny j ud ge nam ed i n the w ar ra nt o r bef or e a ny co u rto fco m petent j uri sdiction

. A n i nventor y o fany i nstr um ents, ar ti cl es or th i ng s se i ze d s ha l l b e fi led wi ththe r etur n a nd si g ne d under oath b y the o ffi ce r o r pe r so n e xe cut i ng the warr ant. The j ud ge shal l upon re quest del i ver a co py of the inventor y t o the per son f ro m wh om o r f ro m wh ose prem i ses the i nstr um ents, ar ti cl es or thi ngs were ta ken a nd to the appli cant f orthe w ar ra nt.38 N o. 08

- 1455

The Ci t y c l ai m s t o s ee k for fei t ur e i n c er t ai n c as es i n- 11 volving p rost itution and gam blin g i n ad diti on to c ert ain narcotics ca ses. 725 I LC S 5/ 108- 10. I n each i n st an c e here, the m oneywas sei zed w i thout a w ar ra nt and s o Se cti on 108- 2 app l i es. Se cti on 1 08- 2, i n turn, di rec ts the cour t t o Se cti on 1 08- 11 and 108- 12. S ecti on 1 08- 12 add re sse s the di sposal o f obs cene m ate ri aland i s no t r el evanther e. S ecti on 1 08- 11 provi des: The cour t be f or e which the i nstr u m en ts, ar ti cl es or th i ng s ar e r etur ne d s ha l l e nt era n o r derpr o vi di ng f orthei r custo dy pend i ng furtherpro ceedi ngs. 725 I LC S 5/ 108- 11. The City e nvi si ons that the c ourt wil l ente r an o rder i n e ac h c as e i nv o l vinga s ei zu r e o fp rop er ty
. The pl ainti ff s do not dispute that a co u rt c oul d, i n theo ry, ente r s uc h a n o r de r . Bu tthe y c o nt e nd tha tthe s t a t ute d oe s n otreq u ire a c ou rtto d o s o , th at co u rt s g en er ally ar e r eluct an t to t ak e th ats te p, a nd tha t i n a ny c as e, the Citydoes notacc ept such a n or der a s s uffi ci en t to se c u re th e rele as e of fu n d s. If m on ey se ize d is p o t e n tia lly subj ect to forfei ture , as i t m ay be in narc oti cs c ase s o r cer tai n other case s, the Cityadm i ts i t will n ot re l eas e 11 the m oneyev en i fthe ar re ste e pr ese nts a co urt order i ssued under S ecti on 1 08 ( i fan a rr est ee m anage s t o p ro c u re su c h an ord er , w h ich G at es an d N els on cla im is d ifficu lt t o im p os sib le). In t h at ins t a n c e, th e C ity ad d itionally requ ires an ord er fr om an ass et f o rfei tu re cou rt ora Polla rd rele as e le tt er from th e A ss et For feit u re U n itN o. 08

- 1455 39

o r a l et te r f r o m th e st at e’ s at to r ne y ’ s o ffi ce indi ca ting a n y f o r f e i t u r e h a s b e e n s e t t l e d e v e n w h e n th e t i me f orapply i ng f orf or feit u re has passed and eve n w hen the Ci ty has deci ded as a m att erof p olic y no t t o see k f or fei ture in cas es i nvol vi ng sm al l am ounts ofm oney . As we noted , the pl aint i ff s ha ve a l so t es ti fi ed th atthe Cityal so re quir es a s i gned Fo rm 54 i n possibl e a sse t f or fei ture cas es as w el l as in allo thercas es, a re quir em ent s tat ed on the f ace ofthe N oti ce. Gates and N el son conte nd thatcr i m i nal co urt j ud ges ro uti nel y r efuse t o enterS ecti on 1 08 or ders and that th e pr o vi si o n is the r efo r e no t ana va i l ab l e r emedy

. The ar gu m en ts of bo th th e p lain tiff s a n d t h e C ity on th is i ss u e a r e mo v i n gt a r g e t s , b u twe s e e a n u mb e r o fp o te nti alpro bl em s with the C ity ’s arg um ent r ega rdi ng S ecti o n 1 08
. Al th o ug h S ec ti o n 1 08 m ight pr o vi de a m ea ns for arr es te es to r e c laim m on ey th at th e C ity h as h eld pas t th e po i nto fa ny l eg i ti m at e r i g ht to reta i n i t, the pl a i nt i ff s ’ r e a l c o mpl a i nti s tha tthe Ci t y h a s a p o l i cy ofr outi nel y putti ng ar re ste es to the b urden ofthat re m edy i n the fi rs t pl ace. The pl ai nti ff s’ fi rs t pointo f conte nti on with the City ’ s p olic y i s that i t r equi re s arre st ee s to pr o vi de an y th i ngo th ertha n the i nv en tory re cei pt and properi denti fi cati on t o col l ect thei r m oney a tth e c o n c l u s i o n o fth e i r c r i mi n a l c a s e s . O nc e th e t i me f o r f o r fei ture h as pas se d a nd i t i s cl ea r the Ci tyha s no enti tl em ent t o the m oney, th e p l ai nti ff s m ai ntai n that th ere is no con stitut ionall y pe rm issible reason to requ ire ar re st ee s t o p ro c u re a c ou rt o rd er to rec laim w h at is r i g ht ful l y the i r s. The Ci tyno ne th el es s i ns i st s upo n the S ecti o n 1 08 o r derb ec au se i t wi sh es t o v er i fy tha t th e40 N o. 08

- 1455

cr i m i na l c as e i s i nde ed o ve r, th at the mone y i s no l o ng erne ede d a s ev i den ce , a nd tha t f o r fei tu r e is n o l onge r an i ssue. In r equi ring the o rder, Gates and N el son conte nd , the Cityshi fts to arrestee s the adm i ni str ati ve bur deno fpr o vinge nt i tl ementt o the i r mone y a nd r et ains the m oneypast any l egi ti m ate ti m e fra m e a s a m att er ofo ffi ci alpol i cy. The questio n w ith r espectto S ecti on 1 08 i s whether the Ci t y o r the a r r e s t e e s ho ul d b e he l d t o the b ur de n of see ki ng a Se ction 1 08 or der. I n case s where the m oney i s l egi ti m ate l y n ee ded as ev i dence orm i ght b e s ubj ect t o forfei tu re, the C ity or th e pros ecu tor can ask the cou rt t o e nt e r a S e c t i o n 1 0 8 o r de r “ pr o v i di ngf o r [ i t s ] c us t o dy p en d in g fu rt h er p r o c ee d in gs .” 72 5 IL C S 5 /1 08 -11 . In ca se s wher e th e cr i m i na l c as e ha s co nc l ude d a nd the ti m e for f o r fei tu r e ha s ex pi r ed, a n a r r es te e m aya skthe c o ur tt o r e l e a s e the fun ds

. T he p l a i nt i ff s c o nt e nd they sh ou ld n otbe p u t t o th is t as k a n d th e C ity co n te n d s it i s a demi n im is burden. The pl ai nti ff s a l so prese nted ev i den ce tha t cr i m i na l c o ur ts a r e r eluct an t to i ss ue Se cti on 1 08 or ders unle ss the a rr est ee can dem onst ra te th atf o r fei tu r e wi l l no t be s ou ght, pl ac i nga r r es te es i n a cl ass i c C atch- 22 because the al l ege d pu rpos e o fr equi r i ngthe S ec ti o n 10 8 orde r i s to de m o ns tr at e to the C ity th at forfe itu re is n o lon ge r an iss u e. I n ar gui ng tha t the Ci ty’ s proced ures r equi ring a S ec ti o n 1 08 o r dero r a F orm 5 4 do no t co m po r t wi thdue pr o ce ss , the pl aint i ff s ci te t o a l ine of ca se s f r o m the Se cond Cir cui t invol vi ng the p ro cedures f orar re ste es to rec ov er th eir p ro p er ty in t h e C it y o fN e w Y or k. SeeN o. 08

- 1455 41 M cClendon v. Roset ti, 460 F.2d 11 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 2); B utler v. C a stro , 89 6 F.2d 69 8 (2d C ir. 19 90 ); A lexa nd re v. C o rtes , 14 0 F
. 3d 40 6 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 8)

. The pl aint i ff s i n M cCl e ndon , l i ke the pla in ti ff s her e, had bee n ar re ste d and had proper ty t ake n fro m them atthe ti m e o fthei r ar re sts
. Pursuant t o a m unici pal o rdi nance, thatpro pertywas d eli vered to the P oli ce P rop erty C lerk of N ew York ( “P r o per tyCl er k”) by the a r r es tingo ffi ce r s o r b y the D e p a r t me n to fC o r r e c t i o ns . I n e a c h p e r s o n ’ s c a s e , c r i mi nal pro ceedi ngs had be en te rm i nated ei therbydi sm i ssa l or c o nv i c t i o n o fa c r i me un r e l a t e d t o the p r o perty
. Th e Di s t r i c tAt t o r ne y h a d in e a c h i ns t a nc e s up pl i e d a re l eas e ce rt i fyi ng tha t the pro pe rt y w as no l onge r needed as evi dence i n any case and that th e D istri ct A ttorn eyha d no o bj ec ti o n t o i ts r el ea se . Ea chpl aint i ff m ade a ti m el y dem an d fo r the r etur n ofhi s o r her p ro p er ty an d ea c h w as to ld th at th ey m u st f i l e a civ il sui t. The part i es agr eed that t h e part ofthe or dinance g i vinga j ud g e th e au th o r i tyt o di r ec t th e r etur n o fthe proper ty w as not a m eani ngful re m ed y b ecause al m ost no c r i m i na l c o ur t j ud ge woul d o r ders ucha r etur n. The cour t hel d that, bey ond cer tai n defi ci enci es ofnot i ce, the ord in an ce i s f atal l y defi ci ent in other ter m s o f du e proce ss. The burden of proo f i n any civil acti on i s e xpressl y put upon the cl aim an t “ f ro m wh ose posses si on such proper ty or m oney w as ta ke n o r obt ai ned, o r any o thercl ai m ant” to “estab l i sh that h e h as a l aw ful ti tl e o r proper ty ri ght in such proper ty orm one y an d l aw full y obtained posses si on th er eo f an d th at su c h p r o p e r t y or m on ey w as h eld an d us ed i n a l awfulm anne r . ” N ew Yo r k, N. Y. Adm i n-42 N o. 08

- 1455 i str ati ve Code § 43 5- 4. 0( f ) ( Sup p .19 71)

. A s the se cti on ha s be en co ns tr ue d by th e N ew Yo r k co ur ts, th e burden exi sts ev en i fther e i s in su ffici ent e vi dence f oran ind i ctm ent. I t e xi sts ev en afteracqui tta l o r d ism iss al. It se em s p lain en ou gh t h a t ab se n t e vidence ofunl aw ful conduct, cr i m i nal sa ncti ons m ay no tb e i mpo s e d n o r p r o pe r t y f o r fe i t e d e v e n tho ugh i n the case o fp ro p erty f or fei ture the burden ofpro of on th e govern m en t seeking it i s only by a prep ond erance ofthe evi dence. M cCl e ndon , 460 F.2d at 115 ( inter na l citations om itted ). The ci ty th u s tr eat ed the ar re ste e a s i fhi s pro perty w as con traba nd or w as p resu m p tively su bj ect t o f orfei tu re . The co urt note d the defendant’s co ncessi on that, as a m att ero fprac tice , wh en a re gi ste re d ow ner ofa car seiz ed i n co nne ct i o n wi th an ar r es t fi l l ed o ut a form p rovide d by the Prop erty C lerk, sho w e d p roof of ow ne rshi p and la w ful posse ssi on, and the Dist rict A tto rney h ad rele as ed th e c ar as ev id en c e, “t h e P ro p er ty C ler k w ill f r e q ue nt l y re turn th e au to m obi l e i fhe i s s ati sfi ed that the c l ai m ant had no know l edge i t was used as a m eans of ori n further ance ofcr i m e. ” M cCl e ndon , 46 0 F
. 2d at 115- 16 (em p h a s i s in orig in al). T h e c ou rtch ar ac te riz ed th is re gul arprac ti ce a s di spl ayi ng a “subst anti aldegr ee of gov er nm entalarbi tr ar i ness” that“s ugges ts per sea l ack of du e proc ess.” 460 F.2d at 115

. Th e cou rt therefore hel d the m unici pal co de “unconst i tuti onalas appli ed to perso ns fro m wh ose poss ess i on m oney orpro perty, o t he r th a n c o n t r a b a n d , h a s b e e n t a k e n o r o b t a i n e d, th o ug h s uchmone y o r pr o pertywas no t r el at ed to a ny c r i mi n a l p r o c e e d i n g, o r, i fi tw a s s o r e l a t e d, s u c h c r i m-N o. 08

- 1455 43 i nal pro ceedi ngs had been te rm i nated, o r i fthe m oney o r p r o pe r t y h a d b e e n ne e de d a s e v i de nc e i n a cr i m i nal proce edi ng, i t w as no l onge r needed f orthatpurpose, as v i o l at i ve o fthe due pr o ce ss cla us es o fthe fi ftha nd f ourt eenth am endm ents. ” 4 60 F. 3d at 116. T h e c as e w as rem an d ed to th e d i s tr ict co u rt, w h ich in tu rn issu ed a rem ed ialorder sp ec ify in g a proc ed ure f orr el eas e o fpro pertyta ken a t a rr est . A m ong othe r th ings , the di st r i ctc o ur t r equi r ed th e Ci tyo fNew Y ork to provi de each perso n fro m wh om p roperty was ta k ena t ar r es t a vo uch erwhi chc o nt aine d i ns tr uct i o ns (p rin te d on th e b ac k of t h e v ou c h er ) on h ow to rec laim hi s o r her p rope r ty
. Acco r di ngt o the c o ur t’ s o r der, the ar re ste e co uld r ecl ai m pro pertytake n a t the ti m e o f ar r es t bypr es en tingthe v o uch er, pr o peri d en ti fi ca ti o n, a nd a di s t r i c ta t t o r ne y ’ s r e l e a s e s t a t i ngtha tthe p r o per ty wa s n o tn e e de d a s e v i de nc e , t o the P r o pe r t y Cl e rk

. U pon dem and, the Pr oper ty C l er k was the n obl i ged to re l eas e the m oney orin st itute f or fei ture o r othe r j ud i ci al p roceed ings ifi t i nt en d ed to keep the p rop erty furth er. See B utler, 896 F.2d at 701 -02 (exp lai n in g the proc ed ure set f o r thb y the di st r i ctc o ur t afte r r emand i n M cCl e ndon ). The City o fN ew Yor k, however, f ai l ed to upd ate i ts m unici pal co de to r efl ect the cour t- or dered pro cedures but i nstea d l eft in pla ce the p ro c ed ures wh i ch had be ens tr i ck end ow n i n M cCl e ndon

. The pl aint i ffi n B utler cl ai m ed no t to ha ve rec ei ve d the v o uch erc o nt aini ng th e i ns tr uct i o ns f o r r ec l ai m i nghi s pr o per ty
. Be cause the Cityo fN ew Yor k had notye t m odi fi ed the m unici pal code t o re fl ect the M cCl e ndon pro cedures, and beca use the pol i ce depar tm ent di d no t g i ve Bu tl era voucher44 N o. 08

- 1455 inform ing him of th e pr e vailing proc ed ure s, th e cou rt fou nd thatButl erco uld m ai ntai n a due pro cess cla im b as ed on lac k of n ot i c e o f th e p ro c ed u re s t o re c laim hi s pro perty
. 89 6 F

. 2d at 703- 04. I n A lexa nd re, the th ird case i n th e series, the p lai nt iff was a r r es ted, cha r g ed wi thmurde r a nd c o nv i ct ed. At the ti m e o fhi s a rre st, pol i ce o ffi cer s s ei zed the carhe was dr i vinga nd j ewe l r y i n h i s po ss es si o n. None o fthe p ro p er ty ta ke n w a s rela te d to th e c rim e. A lexa nd re, 14 0 F
. 3 d a t 4 0 7
. T h e p o l i c e u l t i ma t e l y r e t u r n e d th e c ar t o t he ti tl e ho l dert o who m Alexa nd r e o wed s o m e r emai ni ng pay m en ts
. The j ewe l r y was mis pl ac ed, l o st or s to l en . A l exandre r ai sed two ar gum ents. Fi rst, b ecause the l oss ofhis p roperty r esul ted fro m es tabl i shed City pr oce dur es a nd no t f r o m a r an do m a nd una utho r i ze d a ct, the exi ste nce o fpost -depri vati on r em edi es und erst ate l aw di d no t f o r ec l o se a due pr o ce ss c l ai m . Sec ond , he c o ntended that, ev en i fes tabl i shed City pr oce d u re s a l l owed cl ai m ants to re c ov er pro pertyi n a way that s ati sfi ed due pr o ce ss , the de sc r i pti o n o ftho se pr o ce dur es i n the ne wl y upda te d m uni ci palc o de was mis l ea di nga nd did notpro vi de const i tuti onally adequate noti ce. 14 0 F
. 3d a t 409
. I n e xpo undi ngo n M cCl e ndon , the A lexa nd re cour t e xplai ned that the e ar l i erm unicipalco de w as unconsti tuti onali n two re spects
. Fi rs t, pri sone rs wh ose proper ty w as bei ng h eld by the Pro pertyCl er k di d not re cei ve m eani ngful noti ce o fthe proce du re s f orr ec ov er in g it. A n d se c on d , th e m u n icip al c od e “ im p r o p er ly pla ced the burden ofpro ofo n the pri sone r to ‘ est abl i sh that he ha[ d] a l aw ful ti tl e o r proper ty rig ht i n such proper ty or m oneyand l aw full y obtained posses si onN o. 08

- 1455 45 th er eo fa nd tha t su chprope r tyo r mone y was he l d a nd used i n a l aw ful m anner. ’ ” A lexa nd re, 140 F. 3d at 40 9 (qu oting th e now -obsolete N ew Y o r k m un ici p al code ). “T h is a rra n ge m en t im p er m iss ibly p er m itt ed th e im p os iti o n o fc r imi na l s an ct i o ns i n the abs en ce o funl awful conduct. ” 1 40 F. 3d at 409 ( ci ti ng M cC lendon , 46 0 F
. 2d at 114-16). A na lyzi ng A lex an d re’s du e proc ess claim s, th e cou rt consi dered the de fen d ant’ s cl ai m thatther e co uld be n o d u e p ro c es s c laim for t h e re lea s e o ft h e ca r to th e t itle h old er be c au se p os t-d ep riv at ion rem ed ies av aila b le un d er state la w w ere ad eq ua te to com p en sate A lexan d re f orany i nj ury h e s uffer ed as a r esul t o fthe re l eas e o f the c arto the vendor that held ti tl e pendingfi nal paym en t. Ci tingthe S upr eme Co ur t’s re as o ni ngi n P arrat t v. Tayl or, 451 U .S . 5 27(19 81 ), o verru led in pa rt on oth er groun ds , Da n i e l s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 74 U. S

. 3 27(198 6) , a nd H ud son v. P a lm er, 46 8 U
. S. 51 7 ( 1984 ) , the cour t no ted that pre- depri vati on pro ced u res a re i m pract i cabl e in case s o fn e g l i g e ntand e v e n i nt e nt i o na l de pr i v a t i o ns o fp r o per ty w hen thos e depri vati ons occ ur thro ugh ra nd om and unau thor i zed co nd uct o fst ate em plo yee s; a sta te can not pred ict, after al l, w he n th at con d uc t w il l occu r. 140 F. 3d a t 41 1. I n thos e ca ses , adequate post- depri vati on re med i e s wi l l s uffi c e . Bu ta n a de qu a t e p o s t
- de pr i v a ti on rem ed y i s a de fen s e t o a Section 1983 action on ly w he re the depri vati on i s r andom and unauthori zed

. A lexa nd re, 14 0 F .3 d at41 1; B utler, 89 6 F

. 2d at 700. “By c ontr ast, ‘ the e xi ste nce o find ep endent st ate r el i efdoes notdefeat a S ecti on 1 983 c l ai m wh er e the depri vati on co m pla i ned ofr esul ts f ro m the oper ati on o fes tabl i shed st ate pro ce-46 N o. 08

- 1455 du re s. ’ ” B utler, 89 6 F

. 2d at 700. Because th e re l eas e o f A l ex an d re’ s ca r to the v endor hol ding the t i tl e was effecte d i n acco rdance w i th the Ci ty’ s e stabl i shed proc edu re s, the cour t hel d that the S ecti on 1 98 3 a cti on was not bar re d by Par ratta nd H uds on . A ccor ding to the c ourt, the s yst em es tabl ish ed by the Cityal l owed the Pro perty Cler k t o re l eas e a ve hic le without not i fyi ng the ar re ste e w ho h eld th e vou ch er fori t, a n d c r eated no p roced ure f o r a n a r r es te e to c ha l l en g e th e Ci ty ’ s ac ti o n o fha nd i ng th e ve hi cl e o verto the ti tl ehol der. S uch a s yst em di d not c om p or t w ith d u e p ro c es s. A lexa nd re, 14 0 F
. 3d at 413. A s fo r th e jew elr y, th e c ou rtfirst n o te d th at tw en ty -six yea rs had passed s i nce M cCl e ndon had bee n deci ded and the Ci ty ofN ew Yor k had st ill fa iled to am end i ts m u n icip al c od e t o e lim i n a t e t h e u n c on st itu tio n al p ro visi o ns s tr uckdo wn i n M cCle ndon

. Unl i k e But l er, tho ug h, A l exandre r ecei ved a proper ty voucherf orh is j ew el ry . Copies o fthe voucheri n the re cor d, how ever, sho w ed only the fr o n t of th e vou ch er and i t w as th erefore unc l ea r whethe r Al ex an dr e ha d b ee n pr ovi ded wi ththe i ns t r uc t i o ns f o r r ecl ai mi ngp r o pe r ty tha tn o r mal l y a ppeare d on the backo fthe voucher

. The Ci ty had amende d the muni ci palc o de to i nc l ude atl ea stpa r t o fthe cour t- or dered pro cedures f orthe re lease o fpro perty ta k ena t ar r es t. The c o ur t r emande d the c l ai m r el at i ng to th e jew elr y s o t h at th e t ria l co u rtco u ld co n sid er in the fi r s ti ns t a nc e wh e the r the a men de d mun i c i pal c o de provid ed adequate noti ce o fthe proce du re s a nd wh ether the pr oce du re s them sel ves, a s set f or th i n the am ended co de, wer e ade qua te t o s at i sfythe r equi r ements o fthe d u e p ro c es s c lau se . A lexa nd re, 140 F.3d at41 4.N o. 08

- 1455 47 The S ec o nd Ci r cui t ca se s help c l ar i fy a n i ss ue l ur k i ng i n thi s ca se: the differ ence between r egul arproc ed ures for th e re tu rn of p ro p e r t y a n d rem ed ies to p u rs u e if proper ty i s no t r etur ned accord in g to thos e r egul arpro c e du r e s . T he p a r t i e s a r g ue o v e rwh e the r S e c t i o n 108 i s a “r em ed y” av ail ab le t o a rre st ee s s ee kin g re tu rn of th eir pr op er ty. A rr est ees sho uld r equi re a post- depri vati on “r em edy, ” ho w eve r, o nl y when r andom and unau thor i zed conduct by Cityo ffi ci al s r esul ts i n a depri vati on of thei r proper ty. Th e appropri ate questi on i n the fi rs t i ns t a nc e i s wh e the r the Ci t y, h a v i ngt a k e n the p r o pe r ty of a rre st ee s w ith ou t a w ar ra n t a n d h av in g re ta in ed it unti l the concl usi on o fcr i m i nal pro c eed i ngs, has a pro cedu refo r th e return o fthatpro pertythatco m port s with du e pr o c e s s . I fthe Ci t y i s s a y i ngtha tS e c t i o n 1 0 8 pro vi des the proce du re , a n d the Ci ty re ads S ecti on 1 08 to re q u ire th e a rre st ee s t o s ee k a co u rtord er rele as in g t h eir proper ty ( an or der the City adm i tte dly w i l l not h onor i n c e r t a i n c a s e s ) , th e n th o s e p r o c e d u r e s ma y n o tc o mp o r t wi thdue pr o ce ss . As in M cCl e ndon , tha t pr o ce du re i m proper l y pl aces o n the ar re ste e the bur den ofpro ofto est abl i sh thathe ha d a l aw ful ri gh t to the proper ty. M cCl e ndon char acteri zed such a burden a s i m posi ng a cri m i nal sa ncti on i n the abse nce o fcr i m i nal co nd uct. Even i far re ste es coul d l egi ti m ate l y b e r equi re d to se ekS ec ti o n 1 08 o r der s as a matt ero fo ffi cial po l i cy, the C ity d oe s n otfollow th e le tt er of S ec tio n 10 8. R ec all that the c harg es aga i nst Nels on were dropped. U n der Se cti on 1 08, “[ i ] fthe perso n ar re ste d i s r el eas ed w i thout a charg e be i ng pre fer re d against hi m al l i nstr um ents, ar ti cl es orthi ngs s ei zed, o therthan c on tr aband, shal l be48 N o. 08

- 1455

I n t h e i r com p lain ts, b oth N elson an d G ates tak e issue w ith 12 the Ci t y’ s failur e pro m pt l y t o r etur n the i r pro per t y a tthe c onc l us i on of the c ri m i nalpr oc ee di ngs . I n the c l as s ac t i on cou nt o f the com p lain t, the p la i n t i ff s cite as a com m on qu es- (co n tin u ed ...) re turned t o hi m upon re l ea se. ” The l ega l m eani ng o f “prefer re d” i s o fco urse di ffer ent fro m the col l oqui al use o fthe term
. To pr eferchar ges m eans “to br i ng be

f or e; to pro secute ; to pro ceed with. ” Bl ack’ s Law Dic ti ona r y, S i xth Edi ti o n ( 19 90 )

. Under S ec ti o n 10 8, when the charg es aga i nst Nels on were dism i sse d, hi s pro perty ( excl ud i ng anycon tr aband ) sho uld have bee n re turned to hi m wi th o utfur th era do

. S ec ti o n 1 08

- 2 do es no t co ntem p late a court issu ing an order to effec t u a t e the return ofpro pertyunder these ci rcum sta nc es ; i t s i m plyst ate s th e prop erty “sh allbe retu rned

. ” N or d o e s Sec tion 108-2 or S e c t i o n 1 0 8

- 1 1 s pe c i fy tha t a n a r r e s t e e i s o b l i g e d t o s e e k a c o u r t o r d e r t o r e t r i e v e p r o p e r t y t a k e n a t th e t i me of arr est. S ection 108-11 p rovide s only tha t “[t]he cou rt bef or e which the i nstr um ents, ar ti cl es orthi ngs a re r et urne d s ha l l e nt e r a n o r de r p r o v i di ngf or thei r c us t o dy pend i ng furtherpro ceedi ngs, ” no t that the ar re ste e m ust dem onst ra te an enti tlem ent t o such an o rdero r even that he m us t ask th e cou rt to enter s u c h a n order. U nl ess and unti l the Cityse eks an o rderal l owing i t t o co nt i nue t o ho l d a n a r r este e’ s m o ne y f o l l o wi ngthe c o ncl usi on of cri m i nal proce edi ngs, orunti la cour t sua s ponte ente rs such an or der, i t would s eem thatan a rr est ee i s e nt itle d t o hi s m oneyatthe concl usi on o fthe cri m i nal c a s e a nd a ft e r the t i me f o r f o r fe i t ur e h a s e xp i r e d. 12N o. 08

- 1455 49

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 tion of law an d f act w he the r the d e fe n d an ts “are requ ired to pro vi de the Pl ai nt i ffwith a pr om ptf or feitur e he ar i ng o r m u st release th e m on ey to the p ro p ert y o w ne r im m ed iately f oll ow ing the final disposi ti on of the cr im inal charges

. ” R. 192, at9. A nd ofc our s e, the c l as s i s defi ne d t o i nc l ude o nl y pe rs ons agai ns twhom c ri m i nalc har ge s ha ve bee n r es ol ved i n the t ri al c our t
. W e the re f or e ne ed n otdec i de whe the r Gat es or N elson or a ny class m e m b ers ha v e an y righ t to retriev e the ir m on e y be f or e c r i m i na l pr oc e e di ng s a r e c on c l ude d. M or eov er, the Citydi d not co nfine i tse l fto S ecti on 1 08, i nstea d tel l i ng ar re ste es that they needed a s i gned For m 54 i n additi on t o othe r docum ents i n or der t o re tr iev e t h eir m on ey . B ot h G at es an d N e lso n w er e t old they needed a s i gned Fo rm 54 wh en theyat tem pted to re cl ai m thei r proper ty. Ind eed, the N oti ce b egins with the words “ Pro pertyRel eas e OrderCPD

- 34. 554 Requi r ed. ” The pl aint i ff s wer e no t to l d the y c oul d pr es en t a Section 10 8 ord er or an orde r from an ass et forfeiture c ou rtin t h e a lte rn at ive . N or w as N els on to ld th at h is P o lla rd noti ce ( the one he never re cei ved) w ou ld have be ens uffi ci en t to re cl ai m hi s m o ne y . W he th era r r es ting o ffi ce r s ar e ev er a vailab l e to s i g n o r wi l l i ngt o s i g n a Form 5 4 is a m att ero fso m e di spute, as i s the questi on ofwh etherthe Cityr equi re s t h e For m 54 i n narc oti cs ca se s. The pl aint i ff s ea cht r i ed m ul ti pl e t i m es wi th o ut su cc ess to o bt ain the F o r m 5 4. The r e i s ev i den ce i n the re c or d th at offic er s ro u t in ely ch ec k t h e “ h old for e vidence or i nvest i gat i on” box o n the i nventor y r ecei pt, an ac ti o n whi cht r i g g er s th e ne ed f o r the F o r m 5 4, a nd50 N o. 08

- 1455 also eviden ce th at som e officers ( in clud ing the officers w ho a rr est ed Gates) do notkno w wh at a “ CP D-34. 554” is orw he re th e s e form s are kep t. A s a routine m atter, then, i t a pp ear s that a rr est ees are re quir ed to se ek a F o r m 5 4 wh e n a r r e s t i n go ffi c e r s a r e u n a b l e o r u n wi l l i ng t o e x e c u t e th e m. As wi th th e S e c t i o n 1 0 8 o r der s, t he ar re ste es w er e r eq u ire d to procur e a Fo rm 54 ev en at th e c o nc l us i o n o f the c r i mi na l c a s e s a g a i ns t the m, at a ti m e whe n the Ci t y ha d no fur the r l e g i t i mat e c l ai m to th e funds

. As i n th e S ec o nd Ci r cui t ca ses, requi r i ng ar re ste es to obt ai n a s i gnatur e fro m a po lice o ffi cer w ho m ay gran t or d en y it arbitraril y, d o e s n o t com p ort w ith d u e pr oc es s. In ligh t of th es e con flict s in th e e v iden ce a nd d efi ci en ci es i n the Ci ty ’ s l eg alj us ti fi ca ti o ns f o r s hi ftingthe b ur dent o a r r es te es t o de m o ns tr at e en t i t l e me n tt o th e i r mo n e y a tth e c o n c l u s i o n o fth e i r c r i mi na l c a s e s , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d i n e n t e r i n gj u d g men t i n f avo r ofthe City

. A si gn ifica nt am ount o fm oneygo es uncla i m ed each yea r. The am ount o fm oneyand the n um bero far re ste es who ar e unabl e to r ec l ai m the i r mone y, c o ns tr ue d i n a l i g htmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o the p l a i nt i ff s , a r e b o th i nd i cati ons that the Ci ty’ s pol i cy ( w hatev erthe f act- fi n d er deter m i nes i t t o be) m ake s i t di ffi cul t o r i m possibl e f or ar re st ee s t o re c laim t h eir m on ey ev en w h en th eir cri m i nal cas es ar e co ncl ud ed. There a re a num bero f op en fac t q u es tio n s t h a t w o u l d aid th e d ec isio n of th is ca se . As we a sk ed th e Ci tya t o r ala r g um en t, ho w m an y ar re ste es each y ear“donate ” thei r m oneyto th e Ci ty and how m any r ecl aim i t? W hat e xactl y i s r equi re d of ar re ste es i n or der t o re cl ai m the ir m oney ? I fa Se cti on 1 08N o. 08

- 1455 51

o r deri s r equi r ed, i s i t ac tu al l y a vai l ab l e to a r r es te es , a nd is it trul y a de m inim is matt ert o o bt ain s ucha n o r der? H ow m any a rr est ees have thei r m on ey taken b y a n offi cerwh o checks the “hol d fo r ev i dence ori nvest i gati on” box? How m any g et i t ba ck? H ow m any do not? H ow m any F or m 54 s do Ch i cago pol i ce o ffi cer s s i gn e a c h y e a r ? Ho w man y S e c t i o n 1 0 8 o r der s are e nt e r e d, and how m any a re deni ed? Giv en the i m pr ess i ve am ount o fm oneythatgo es uncla i m ed each yea r by a cl ass o fper sons w ho in all l i kel i hood want i t ba ck, has th e C ity cr ea te d a p o l i c y t h at p lac es an im p er m iss ible an d da unt i ngb ur deno n a r r es te es t o e st abl i sha n e nti tl ementt o money tha t th e Ci tyha s no r i g htt o r et ain? Sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the du e pr oce ss cl ai m s w as enter ed i n er ror and w e v acat e the j ud gm ent forpro ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

C. H av i ngv aca ted th e j udg m en t r el at ed to the due proce ss cl ai m s, we turn t o th e sta te l aw r est i tuti on cl ai m s. On appe al, the pl aint i ff s co m pl ain tha t th e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d i n d i s mi s s i n gth e r e s t i t u t i o n c l a i ms as m oot. T he restitution claim s, w hich the p laint iffs adde d i n th e F i fth Ame n d e d C o mpl a i n t, we r e b r o u g ht und ertheo ri es ofunj ust e nri chm ent, const ructi ve tr ust, dec l a r a t o r y j ud g men t a nd b r e a c h o f fi du c i a r y du t y . Each so ug htthe r etu rn ofthe s ei ze d m o ne y a nd no th i ng m o r e. The Ci ty, o fc o ur se , ha d t en der ed th e ful l a m o unt o fe a c h p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m i mme d i a t e l y a ft e r th e f i r s tc o mp l a i ntw a s fi l e d , l o n gb e f o r e th e p l a i n t i ff s fi l e d c l a i ms52 N o. 08

- 1455 f or re sti tuti on and l ong bef or e they sought ce rt i fi cati on ofa re sti tuti on c lass. Counself orthe pla i nti ff s r etur ned th e C ity ’s c h ec ks an d rejec te d th e t en d er . Whe th er a c a s e i s mo o ti s a qu e s t i o n o fl a w th a twe r ev i e w deno vo . Ols on v . Brown , 5 9 4 F
. 3 d 5 7 7, 5 8 0 ( 7 th C ir. 20 10 ), cert. denied , 201 0 W L 17 00 88 0 (Jun e 2 1, 20 10 ). A case is m oo t “ w hen the i ssues pre sente d are no l onge r ‘live ’ or t h e p ar ti e s l a c k a leg ally co gn iza b le in te re st in the o utcom e. ” U nite d State s P aroleCo m m is si on v. G eragh ty, 445 U
. S. 38 8, 39 6 ( 1980 ) ( quoti ng P ow el l v. M cCo rm ack, 395 U
. S. 48 6, 49 6 ( 1969)). A te nd eri s s uffi ci ent when i t m ake s the pl ai nti ffw h ole

. G a tes I , 430 F.3d at43 1. In th i s ca se , the Ci ty ten d er ed th e ful l a m o unt s th e pl aintiffs requ e s t e d i n th e restitution cou nt s long before th e p l a i n t i ff s e v e n a d d e d th e s e c l a i ms t o th e i r c o mpl aint s. Tha t ten d er e nde d a ny di spu te o ve r r es ti tu ti o n, an d th e pl aint i ff s ca nno t r ev i ve i t by si m p ly refus i ng th e t en d er . H ol s t e in v. City of Chi cago , 29 F. 3d 1145 , 11 47 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4)

. Tha t pl aint i ff s so ug ht t o c er ti fy a r es ti tu
ti on cl ass does notchange thi s r esul t be cause they did not add the cl ai m s o r m ove to cer tify the c l ass unti l after the i r p e r s o na l s t a k e i n the a c t i o n ha d e v a po r a t e d. H olst ei n , 2 9 F
. 3 d a t1 1 4 7
. T h e f a c t s d o n o tl e n d th e mse l ve s to a ny e xc ept i o n t o the g en er al ru le, and the di st r i ctc ou rt the r efo r e co r r ec tly di smi ss ed th e r es ti tu
tio n cla im s a s m oo t.

III. Insu m , w e fin d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in g r an ting su m m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe Ci tyo n theN o. 08

- 1455 53 pl aint i ff s’ due pr o ce ss c l ai m s. W e th er efo r e va ca te the j ud gm ent in partand re m and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs on the due pro cess cl ai m s r el ating to not i ce a nd pro cedu re s t o re cl ai m se i zed fund s. W e agr ee, however, with the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a sse ssm ent o fthe re sti tutio n cl ai m s, w hi ch w er e properl y di sm i sse d as m oo t a nd we ther ef or e a ffi rm the j ud gm ent in part
. Each party s hal l bea r its ow n co st s o n ap p ea l. A FFI RMED I N P ART, V ACATED AND R EMAND ED IN P ART .

9- 27- 10