Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia
115 F. Supp. 3d 56
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are 22 owners of cars or currency seized by MPD under DC’s former civil forfeiture regime (pre-2015 amendments).
- Seizures were authorized by former DC Code § 48-905.02 (2012) and followed by post-seizure notice and bond requirements to pursue forfeiture.
- Plaintiffs allege multiple due process violations: inadequate notice, lack of prompt post-seizure hearings, secret informal challenge procedures, and bond-related barriers.
- District moved to dismiss the amended complaint; the Court granted in part and denied in part, allowing some due process claims to proceed.
- The Court applies Mathews v. Eldridge balancing for vehicle seizures and concludes no prompt hearing is required for currency seizures.
- During 2015, DC amended its asset forfeiture law to impose stricter notice, inventory, bond reductions, and interim release provisions, addressing several alleged infirmities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing for seized vehicles | Krimstock favored prompt hearing for cars | No post-seizure hearing required for vehicles under current regime | Yes, due process requires a prompt hearing for seized vehicles |
| Whether due process requires a post-seizure hearing for seized cash | Prompt hearing necessary for currency seizures | No such pre-hearing required for cash | No, no prompt hearing required for currency seizures |
| Notice timing and adequacy after seizure (Counts 1,5,9) | Post-seizure and content notices are insufficient | Notices reasonably calculated to inform; detailed content not required | Counts 1 and 9 dismissed; Count 5 survives in part depending on notice adequacy |
| Constitutionality and application of the bond requirement (Count 14) | Bond scheme violates due process and equal protection when applied; indigents barred from court | Bond requirement serves to deter frivolous claims; waivers/reductions available | Bond requirement facially survives; as-applied challenges survive for those alleging improper discouragement or denial of waivers |
| Administrative forfeiture procedures and secrecy (Counts 10,12,7) | Ex parte procedures and unpublicized secret hearings violate due process | Two-tier system common; pre-CAFRA procedures valid | Count Twelve upheld; Count Ten viable if secret procedures exist; Count Seven denied for lack of timely return where not forfeitable. The court denied dismissal on these passages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (due process requires prompt hearing to challenge seizure and retention of vehicles)
- Smith v. City of Chicago, 524 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2008) (prompt probable-cause hearings after seizure of vehicles/currency)
- Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2012) (Mathews test applied to DC asset forfeiture; supports prompt hearing for cars)
- City of Los Angeles v. David, 538 U.S. 713 (2003) (Mathews factors; predeprivation hearings context in municipal asset matters)
- West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999) (requires only reasonable notice to pursue remedies; not detailed state remedies)