Opinion ID: 627310
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unreasonable Seizure of Property

Text: Wilian Taveras Gomez claims that the confiscation of $605.00 in cash from his dresser violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). Subject to a limited number of exceptions not at issue here, “a seizure of personal property [is] per se unreasonable . . . unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be 7 seized.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). Under Garrison, officers who know or should know that these requirements are not met must abstain from seizing personal property. An officer who fails to adhere to this requirement violates the property owner’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Wilian Taveras Gomez alleges that Feissner searched the Gomez home after he should have known that he had no warrant to do so, and it is undisputed that he seized $605.00 from Wilian Taveras Gomez’s dresser during that search. This account is sufficient to state a claim that Feissner violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, and Feissner therefore does not have qualified immunity from this claim. Because, however, there is no allegation that Zola seized any property, he does have qualified immunity.