FEAR-List Bulletin posted by Brenda Grantland, 5/5/98

Yesterday, Monday May 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of City of West Covina vs. Perkins, S.Ct. #
97-1230.  See "High Court to Hear Property Seizure Case" by David G. Savage, L.A. Times 5/5/98.

Lawrence and Clara Perkins, of West Covina, California, returned home in May 1993 to find their door had been broken open and the place ramshackled.  A notice left behind explained that the West Covina police had executed a search warrant for their home. The police were looking for a murder suspect who had previously rented a room from the Perkins, but who no longer lived there. During the search, the police seized the Perkins' cash savings of $2,469.  The notice did not tell the Perkins how to claim their property, but it did give the name and phone number of a detective.

Lawrence Perkins went to visit the detective, and was asked for his help in locating the suspect the police were after.  When
Perkins told him that he could not help them locate the suspect, the detective told him they could not return his property.  The
detective told Perkins he would have to get a court order to get the property back.

Perkins then went to the courthouse to find out what to do next and they told him he would need the number of the search
warrant.  Further inquiries resulted in another obstacle -- officials said the search warrant was sealed and he could not get the
number.  Perkins went to see the judge who signed the warrant, but he was on vacation.

Perkins hired a lawyer, who filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming Perkins had been deprived of due process.  Some time after the lawsuit was filed, the government gave the money back, but Perkins persisted in his suit, seeking to stop the practice.  The district court granted summary judgment for the city, holding that Perkins should have invoked the procedures in a state statute providing for the return of  seized property, and that he waived them by not invoking the statute in time.  The district court did not rule on Perkins' due process challenge until the Ninth Circuit remanded, telling the court to rule on that issue.  The district court then ruled that Perkins received adequate notice.

The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Boochever, reversed, holding that:

Seizure of property pursuant to a search warrant occurs "to thousands of [people] of various levels of education, experience, and resources" who should be clearly informed of the procedure for retrieving their property if it is not needed for the criminal proceedings.  See Memphis Light, 436 U.S. at 15 n. 15, 98 S.Ct. at 1563 n. 15.   People who are not suspected of criminal activity and whose property is seized are in particular need of detailed notice.  As in this case, they may be uninvolved in the alleged criminal activity pursuant to which the government has seized their property without a predeprivation hearing.  The "situation demands" written notice of how to retrieve the property.  See Aguchak v. Montgomery Ward Co., 520 P.2d 1352, 1357 (Alaska 1974) (due process requires that written notice to legally      unsophisticated and indigent defendants be more substantial, detailed, and easily understood).  We find the written notice  given by the West Covina Police Department was constitutionally inadequate.

Judge Leavy, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed with the last point, saying that due process does not require that the notice spell out Perkins' remedies.

This is a very important case for a large number of people with small seizures.  When police seize property illegally or under a
statute that does not require the government to initiate forfeiture proceedings and give notice before declaring property abandoned, they can effectively deprive the property owner of his property by giving them the run around until they give up.
Under the California drug law, Health & Safety Code §11470 et. seq.,* when property is seized for forfeiture,  the property owner only has 10 days to file a claim or else they waive their rights to contest the seizure.  The statute requires the police to give the property owner a written notice which contains the procedures -- at the time the property is seized.  California police have been known to engage in a similar run-around by handing the notice to someone they're arresting, then taking it away from them when they are booked, fingerprinted, and processed into the jail.  After the arrestee gets over the trauma of being arrested and arraigned, hiring an attorney, posting bail, etc. and starts to wonder again about the property seizure, the ten days has often expired.  Anyone who has encountered such a runaround should report it to Tom Gordon or the victim support committee at FEAR.

FEAR thanks the Perkins and their attorney,   Patrick S. Smith, of Klass, Helman & Ross, Los Angeles, for persisting through five years of litigation over a small amount of money but a very important principle.

____________

*  Perkins' property was not seized under the drug forfeiture law, so this provision did not apply.