Supreme Court Seizure ruling

[Edward Britton <fremin@geocities.com>]

Court rules police don't have to say how to reclaim seized property 
11.00 a.m. ET (1600 GMT) January 13, 1999

By Laurie Asseo,Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) Police who seize someone's property during a search 
do not have to provide information on how to get it back later, the 
Supreme Court ruled today.

The court voted unanimously to kill a California couple's lawsuit 
over the difficulty they had recovering cash taken by police during a 
search of their home.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court that when police seize 
property under a search warrant, due process requires them to give 
notice that the property was taken. Otherwise, the property's owner 
might not know who took it, he said.

But Kennedy added, "Once the property owner is informed that his 
property has been seized, he can turn to ... public sources to learn 
about the remedial procedures'' for recovering the property later.

"The city need not take other steps to inform him of his options,'' 
Kennedy said.

Lawrence and Clara Perkins' home was searched by police in West 
Covina, Calif., in May 1993. The couple had rented a room to a man 
linked to a shooting death elsewhere in the town.

Among the items seized from the house was $2,469 in cash belonging to 
the Perkinses.

 No one was at home when the house was searched, but police left a 
note saying they conducted the search under a court warrant. The note 
included a list of the items seized and contained a phone number to 
obtain further  information.

Lawrence Perkins called the number and was told he needed a court 
order to get the money returned. Later, he was told there was nothing 
at the  municipal courthouse under his name and that he needed a case 
number or search warrant number. No city employee told him how to 
find those numbers.

The Perkinses sued the city in 1993, saying the search violated their 
constitutional rights. The city returned the cash in mid-1994.

A federal judge ruled for the city, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals said the city violated Perkins' constitutional rights by 
giving inadequate notice on how to recover the cash.

Today, the Supreme Court said the appeals court was wrong.

To uphold that ruling, "we would be required to find that due process 
requires notice that not one state or the federal government has seen 
fit to require,'' Kennedy wrote.

His opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and 
Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself and Justice Antonin 
Scalia, agreed with the result.

The case is City of West Covina vs. Perkins, 97-1230. 





 "I know you believe you understand what you
think I said; however I don't think you realize that what I think you
heard is not what I meant."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NextCard - the First, True Internet VISA: Get online account info,
transfer balances and rates as low as 2.9% APR with no annual fee!
Learn more at: http://offers.egroups.com/click/203/0

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/reality_pump
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com