Court Rules Police Don't Have To Say How To Reclaim Seized

Washington, DC -- 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 Wednesday.

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, California, 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.

Wednesday, 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.

Copyright 1999 Associated Press.

News : Archives : January

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings are made available without profit for research and educational purposes.