Blair Langston v. Charter Township of Redford
623 F. App'x 749
6th Cir.2015Background
- In Aug. 2009 Redford police (with U.S. Marshals involvement) arrested Blair Langston for unrelated federal charges; officers seized $5,142 in cash and a Breitling watch incident to arrest and issued a notice of administrative forfeiture under Michigan’s Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
- The notice required filing a written claim and posting a bond (10% of value; $250–$5,000) within 20 days at the local unit of government; Langston was jailed and asked his mother to file and post bond for him.
- Langston’s mother attempted to retrieve the property at the station but alleges officers would not accept a claim or bond there and directed her elsewhere (and did not clearly inform her how to proceed); Redford considered the property forfeited after 20 days.
- Langston sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: facial and as‑applied procedural and substantive due process violations, a Fourth Amendment challenge to the forfeiture, and Monell municipal liability based on customs/policies. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.
- The Sixth Circuit held Langston had standing to challenge the forfeiture and rejected his facial challenge to M.C.L. § 333.7523, but reversed summary judgment on an as‑applied procedural‑due‑process claim based on evidence that the police refused to accept a timely claim/bond at the station. Summary judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial due‑process challenge to M.C.L. § 333.7523 (lack of judicial review/short claim period) | Statute is facially invalid because it lacks meaningful judicial review and the 20‑day claim/bond requirement precludes incarcerated/indigent claimants from being heard | Michigan law allows judicial review; statute supplies notice and post‑deprivation procedures; state courts will excuse defects in notice and allow relief | Rejected: statute not facially invalid; judicial review exists under Michigan precedent |
| As‑applied procedural due process (refusal to accept claim/bond at station) | Police refused to accept a timely claim/bond from Langston’s mother, effectively denying his post‑deprivation hearing opportunity | No deprivation occurred because claimant failed to timely file; station staff followed local practice and claims/bonds were handled by prosecutor’s office | Reversed summary judgment for Redford on this claim — disputed facts about refusal to accept claim create triable issue |
| Fourth Amendment challenge to forfeiture (no probable cause property tied to drugs) | Forfeiture lacked probable cause linking cash/watch to drug activity; continuing seizure via forfeiture violated Fourth Amendment | Property was seized incident to a lawful arrest; once seizure was complete, Fourth Amendment does not protect regaining possession; no new Fourth Amendment injury | Affirmed for defendants: seizure was incident to lawful arrest and Fox v. Van Oosterum bars a separate Fourth Amendment claim for return |
| Monell municipal liability (custom/policy caused deprivation) | Redford had a custom/practice of routinely issuing forfeiture notices and refusing claims at the station, causing constitutional deprivation | No underlying constitutional violation (so no Monell liability); Officer testimony does not establish an official custom or policymaker action | Mixed: summary judgment reversed as to Monell claim tied to the refusal‑to‑accept‑claims theory (triable issue); Monell claim tied to wrongful forfeiture without a constitutional right failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 1999) (Fourth Amendment does not protect regaining possession once seizure is complete)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing constitutional deprivation)
- Calero–Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974) (permissibility of predeprivation seizure of personal property when exigency exists)
- United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 218 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2000) (discussing exigency in forfeiture seizures of movable personal property)
- In re Return of Forfeited Goods, 550 N.W.2d 782 (Mich.) (Mich. Supreme Court recognizing limits on circuit court jurisdiction and circumstances allowing return when notice defective)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (section 1983 does not require exhaustion of state court remedies)