Opinion ID: 779364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Prompt Vehicle Retention Hearing

Text: 78 As a remedy, we order that claimants be given a prompt post-seizure retention hearing, with adequate notice, 31 for motor vehicles seized as instrumentalities of crime pursuant to N.Y.C.Code § 14-140(b). 32 There is no universal approach to satisfying the requirements of meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard in a situation such as this. See Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 96, 92 S.Ct. 1983 (acknowledging that the nature and form of [fair prior hearings] are legitimately open to many potential variations); cf. Green v. County Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968) (There is no universal answer to the complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case.); Int'l Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 400-01, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947) (The framing of decrees should take place in the District rather than in Appellate Courts. They are invested with large discretion to model their judgments to fit the exigencies of the particular case.). Moreover, the cost of additional procedures and the details of their implementation are matters peculiarly suited to the experience of the district court and the knowledge of the parties. Therefore, as we did in McClendon, 460 F.2d at 116, we leave it to the district court, in consultation with the parties, to fashion appropriate procedural relief consistent with this opinion. See Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 97 n. 33, 92 S.Ct. 1983 (Leeway remains to develop a form of hearing that will minimize unnecessary cost and delay while preserving the fairness and effectiveness of the hearing....); cf. United States v. City of Yonkers, 197 F.3d 41, 57 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that a district court has broad equitable discretion to apportion remedial costs in desegregation cases). 79 Although we decline to dictate a specific form for the prompt retention hearing, we hold that, at a minimum, the hearing must enable claimants to test the probable validity of continued deprivation of their vehicles, including the City's probable cause for the initial warrantless seizure. In the absence of either probable cause for the seizure or post-seizure evidence supporting the probable validity of continued deprivation, an owner's vehicle would have to be released during the pendency of the criminal and civil proceedings. 80 We hasten to point out that we do not envision the retention hearing as a forum for exhaustive evidentiary battles that might threaten to duplicate the eventual forfeiture hearing. 33 Inasmuch as the purpose of the hearing is the limited one of determining whether the vehicle should be returned to its owner during the pendency of proceedings, due process should be satisfied by an initial testing of the merits of the City's case. In addition, the retention hearing will allow the court to consider whether less drastic measures than continued impoundment, such as a bond or a restraining order, would protect the City's interest in the allegedly forfeitable vehicle during the pendency of proceedings. 81 On remand, in addition to fashioning appropriate relief, the district court should ascertain how many of the named plaintiffs have recovered their vehicles from the Property Clerk and determine whether their claims have thereby been rendered moot. 34 To the extent that mootness may affect the claims of any of the named plaintiffs, the court, in addressing the issue of class certification, should consider whether exceptions to the mootness doctrine preserve the merits of the case for judicial resolution of the unnamed class members' claims.