Legal Document

525 U.S. 234119 S.Ct. 678142 L.Ed.2d 636 113 F.3d 1004, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 1230 CITY WEST COVINA, PETITIONERv.LAWRENCE PERKINS et al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR NINTH CIRCUIT [January 13, 1999] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We consider in this case whether Constitution requires a State or its local entities to give detailed specific instructions advice owners who seek return property lawfully seized but no longer needed for police investigation criminal prosecution. Interpreting Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, Court Appeals Ninth Circuit imposed series notice requirements on city responsible seizure. conclude these are not mandated by Clause, we reverse. 2 * The began when officers petitioner, City West Covina, California, acting accordance with law pursuant valid search warrant, personal property. belonged owner searched home, respondent Lawrence Perkins, his family. suspect crime was neither Perkins nor anyone family, one Marcus Marsh. Marsh had been boarder Perkins' home. After leaving their unknown them, he became subject homicide investigation. 3 During respondents' home evidence incriminating Marsh, number items, including photos an address book, 12-gauge shotgun, starter pistol, ammunition, $2,629 cash. 1006 (CA9 1997). At conclusion search, left respondents form entitled "Search Warrant: Notice Service," which stated: 4 "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 5 "1. THESE PREMISES HAVE BEEN SEARCHED BY PEACE OFFICERS (name searching agency) Covina Police DEPARTMENT PURSUANT A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED (date) 20 93, HONORABLE magistrate) Dan Oki, JUDGE SUPERIOR/MUNICIPAL COURT, Citrus JUDICIAL DISTRICT. 6 "2. WAS CONDUCTED 5-21-93. LIST PROPERTY SEIZED IS ATTACHED. 7 "3. IF YOU WISH FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 8 investigator) Det. Ferrari Melnyk AT [telephone number]. 9 "LT. SCHIMANSKI number]." App. 76 77 (italicized characters represent those portions original document were handwritten form). 10 In Notice, also itemized list seized. F.3d, at 1011 1012. did leave warrant because under seal avoid compromising ongoing Id., 1007. public index maintained court clerk, however, issuance recorded number. Ibid. 11 Not long after called Ferrari, detectives listed inquired about CV 93 7084 SVW (CD Cal., July 8, 1996), Pet. Cert. E 3. One told obtain order authorizing property's return. 12 About month went Municipal see Judge issued warrant. He learned Oki vacation. tried have another judge release nothing name. 13 Rather than continuing pursue releasing filing written motion court, making other inquiries, returning courthouse some later date, ibid., filed suit United States District against conducted search. They alleged violated Fourth Amendment rights conducting without probable cause exceeding scope 9. further that policy permitting unlawful searches. 10. 14 granted summary judgment officers. B1 B11. invited supplemental briefing issue raised: available remedies adequate satisfy due process. B 7. parties submitted briefs issue, rule it. Respondents appealed Court's holding claims, remanded resolution process question. 94 56365 (CA9, Apr. 30, D1 D3. 15 held remand provided California satisfied process, it City. SVW, supra, 2. particular, rejected claim procedure unavailable them remedy information invoke 6. 16 On appeal, grant 1006. As initial matter, noted that, Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 67 (1972), only postdeprivation remedy, predeprivation hearing prior 1010. agreed established statute 1011. 17 Nevertheless, held, analogy decision Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. Craft, 436 (1978), required state procedures necessary (including method obtaining number). While acknowledging court's place "to specify exact phrasing notice," proceeded explicate, detail, content notice: 18 "In cases where is taken should include following: as present notice, fact agency; date issuing judge, she serves; persons be contacted information. addition, must inform recipient contesting seizure retention taken, along any additional initiating appropriate court. circumstances such presented record, or, if record sealed, means identifying file. It explain need request stating why returned." 1013. 19 This expansive requirement lacks support our mandates now prescribed Federal Government 50 States. II stage, contests right first instance ultimate obligation So rules restricting substantive power take implicated case. What provide fair ensure has lawful retain 21 acknowledge, they must, notified gave inventory taken. Accordingly, decide how given. raise independent challenge Appeals' provides property, Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1536 (West 1982) §1540. See Rather, contend deprived failing factual law. When seize investigation, does require remedies. 22 primary purpose opportunity meaningful. Mullane Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 306, 314 (1950) ("Th[e] heard little reality worth unless informed matter [affecting one's rights] pending can choose himself appear default, acquiesce contest"). follows enforcement agents reasonable steps so Cf. Schroeder New York, 371 208, 214 (1962) (requiring deprivation city's condemnation certain water created owner's damages claims triggered limitations claims). Individualized before us would ascertaining loss. 23 No similar rationale justifies requiring individualized state-law which, like here, published, generally statutes Once seized, turn sources learn remedial him. him options. Reetz Michigan, 188 505, 509 (1903) (holding fixing time meetings medical licensing board license applicants applications because: "When fixes meeting tribunal, special interested required. itself sufficient notice"); Atkins Parker, 472 115, 131 (1985) (noting "[t]he entire structure democratic government rests premise individual citizen capable informing particular policies affect destiny"). demands laws available, concluded procedures. See, e.g., Hudson Palmer, 468 517 (1984). 24 relied, contrary. utility make customers discuss billing dispute employee authority resolve terminating service nonpayment. U.S., 17. customer planned termination, availability general contours internal administrative resolving accounting dispute. 15. procedures, relied principle protecting interests described publicly document. terminate could reasonably expected educate protect interests: 25 "[T]here indication account [the utility's resolution] accessible complaints bills. [The plaintiff's] reveals procedure, existed all, depended vagaries 'word mouth referral.' " 14, n. 14. 26 Light demonstrates may arcane set forth documents public, 27 far-reaching precedent conflicts well-established practice Government. far exceeds traditionally agencies provide. Indeed, seeking Appendix., infra, ___. 28 Rule Criminal Procedure 41(d), example, federal seizing "give person from whom whose premises copy receipt [to] taken." makes provision notifying analysis render every analogous inadequate constitutional matter. shadow unwavering tradition, all more untenable; sustain it, find seen fit require, context practices centuries. 29 urge cannot uphold broad requirement, should, least, affirm narrower ground specifically, judicial Court, made explicit finding failed establish file property: 30 "Perkins argues [court] know Unfortunately there either way Defendants assert necessary, claimant sufficiently identify seeks (i.e., providing name agency officer, identity possession), will Plaintiffs want simply assume denied But speculation." 31 undermines predicate alternative argument, further. 32 reversed, proceedings consistent opinion. 33 ordered. APPENDIX OPINION 34 Laws Governing Execution Search Warrants Procedures Return Seized Property 35 Fed. Crim. Proc. 41(d); Ala. §15 (1995); 3.11 (1996); Alaska Stat. §12.35.025 37 (1998); Ariz. Rev. §§13 3919 3922 1989); Ark. 13.3 §1535 1982); Colo. §16 305 (1997); 41 Conn. Gen. §§54 33c, 54 36f Supp. 1998); Del. Ct. Common Pleas Super. D. C. §23 524 41(1998); Fla. §933.11 Ga. Code. §§17 25, (1990); Haw. Idaho §§19 4413, 4415, 4416 Ill. Comp. Ann., ch. 725, §§5/108 6, 5/108 1992); Ind. §§35 Iowa §808.8 1994); Kan. §§22 2506, 2512 (1988 1997); Ky. 13.10 (1993); La. Art. 166 1991); Me. Md. 601 Mass. Laws, 276, §§1 (Law Co-op. 1992 ed. Mich. §780.655 Minn. §§626.16, 626.17 Miss. §§41 157(a)(3) (1981), §99 (1994); Mo. §542.291 (Vernon Mont. §§46 227, 46 301 Neb. §29 815 Nev. §179.075 (Michie N. H. §595 A:5 (1986); J. §33:1 61 Prac. 3:5 M. Dist. §5 211 Magis. §6.208 Y. Law §690.50 (McKinney 1995); §§15A 252, 15A 254 (Supp. 1987); Ohio §2933.241 Okla. Tit. 22, §§1232 1234 1986 Ore. §§133.575, 133.595 (1991); Pa. Rules 2008, 2009 R. I. S. §17 150 (1985); Codified §23A (Rule 41(d) Tenn. Tex. §18.06 1977 Utah §77 206 Vt. (1993 Va. 19.2 57 Wash. 2.3 W. §62 1A Wisc. §968.17 1985); Wyo. §7 102 (1998). Thomas, J., concurring 36 Scalia joins, judgment. I agree majority's opinion, ante, compel post write separately, endorse suggestion, dicta, "when return." my view, represents unwarranted extension procedural principles developed civil into area heretofore governed exclusively Amendment. 38 am aware, never suggested governs execution assumed tailored explicitly justice system, balance between always thought define 'process due' seizures ." Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 125, (1975). imposes "notice" executing failure renders otherwise-lawful "unreasonable" Amendment.1 39 previously common-law stolen goods "furnished model 'reasonable' Amendment." 116, common law, furnish T. Taylor, Two Studies Constitutional Interpretation 82 (1969); Hawkins, Crown 137 (6th 1787) ("The officer required, shall shew same chattels distrained, suffer thereof taken"). Furthermore, adhere denounced Wilkes Wood, Lofft 1, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (K.B. 1763), Entick Carrington, How. St. Tr. 1029 (C. P. 1765), two celebrated profoundly influenced Founders' view what "reasonable" entailed.2 both cases, Lord Camden criticized warrants constrained safeguards built up around goods. specifically complained seized.3 40 light historical evidence, open considering, case, adopted majority today. Wilson Arkansas, 514 927 (1995) (relying antecedents "reasonable search"). unwilling, ahistorical reliance source requirement. therefore concur Notes 1. Although addressed near unanimous agreement among lower courts cited Appendix 12, LaFave, Seizure: Treatise §4.12 (3d 1996). 42 Amar, First Principles, 107 Harv. L. 757, 775 Stuntz, Substantive Origins Procedure, 105 Yale 393, 400 (1995). 43 Entick, Tr., 1067 ("[T]he much circumspection guarded mischief, likewise subject, adding proper checks; inventory, deliver . [W]ant [these safeguards] undeniable argument legality thing"); Wilkes, Lofft, 19, Rep., 499 ("As proof papers away, plaintiff them; able given produced none").

Classification Label: 3