HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 AMICUS BRIEF 07-07-98 LAW OFFICES OF
WOODRUFF~ SPRADLIN & SMAR'~
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
NO. 19
7-7-98
TO'
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Tustin
FROM: City Attorney
DATE: June 30, 1998
RE:
Participation in No Cost Amicus Brief in Support of the City of West Covina
in West Covina vs. Perkins, United States Supreme Court Case No. 97-1230
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve joinder of the City in the amicus brief at no cost to City on the side of the
City of West Covina.
DISCUSSION:
This case involves a situation in which an individual was properly served With a
search warrant in connection with a criminal prosecution and property was legally seized.
The individuals involved sued the City of West Covina and various detectives and officers
of the City alleging various Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment
(Due Process) violations arising out of the execution of the warrant and the seizure of a
starter pistol and approximately $2,500 in cash.
While the search and seizure was validated by the District Court and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal questioned the adequacy of the
notice provided to the individuals regarding about how to get their property back. The
District Court had ruled in favor of the City stating in regard to one person that the
individual "was told that he had to get a court order to get his property back; he was told
what court and what judge to go to; and he was given the date of the warrant and of the
search." The District Court viewed this level of notice, which is the usual and customary
notice given by most California cities under similar circumstances, as sufficient to meet
Due ProceSs requirements.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, however, reversed this ruling, holding that a more
complete notice was required. The court stated as follows:
1100-00022
64902_1
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City 'of Tustin
June 30, 1998
Page 2
"The notice must inform the recipient of the
procedure for contesting the seizure or retention of
the property taken, along with any additional
information required for initiating that procedure in
the appropriate court. In circumstanceS such as
those presented by this record, the notice must
include the search warrant number, or if it is not
available or the record is sealed, the means of
identifying the court file. It also must explain the
need for a written motion or request to the court
stating why the property should be returned."
This ruling is troubling for many reasons. First it requires public entities to provide
"guidance" and legal assistance to claimants in pursing recovery of legally seized property.
Under existing California law, cities have no duty to provide post-deprevation procedures
for the return of property. Rather that duty rest with the courts. This ruling requires police
departments in cities to give advice and guidance on court procedures over which they
have no control or authority. The 67 cities and counties that have already joined in this
brief before the Supreme Court believe that this is an untenable pOsition, and we agree.
We have previously advised the Police Department of this decision and have discussed
with them the difficulties involved in giving the appropriate advice, given the variety of court
procedures available and different courts for obtaining the release of property.
The amicus brief is being written at no charge to participating cities by the law firm
of Burke, Williams & Sorenson.
LOIS E. JEFFRI~ ~/// (.,)
CC:
William A. Huston, City Manager
Chief Steve Foster, Chief of Police
1100-00022
64902_1