Opinion ID: 169696
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cash ($33,725 and $139)

Text: The cash seized from Dopp’s residence was placed in the evidence room at the District Attorney’s Drug Task Force office. In April 2001, the office was burglarized and several items from the evidence room, including the cash seized from Dopp’s residence, were stolen. A full investigation was conducted, resulting in a suspect. However, no charges were filed because there was insufficient admissible evidence to establish probable cause. In his complaint, Dopp argued the State Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by disposing of this cash without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing. Relying on Hudson v. Palmer, the district court concluded the State Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because in cases like this, where the property’s disposal was random and unauthorized, due process is violated only if a state’s postdeprivation remedies are unavailable, unresponsive or inadequate. 468 U.S. 517 -12- (1984). It concluded the Oklahoma G overnmental Tort Claims Act provided a remedy for unlaw ful deprivation of property and Dopp had failed to allege this remedy was unavailable, unresponsive or inadequate. Although we agree with the district court that the State D efendants are entitled to summary judgment as to the cash, we do so on a different basis. United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994) (“W e are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court.”). In D aniels v. Williams, the Supreme Court held: “[T]he Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.” 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). Because Dopp alleges he was deprived of his money by the State Defendants’ negligence (i.e., not taking adequate measures to safeguard his money), the Fourteenth Amendment does not afford him a remedy.