Chad Bock v. State of Washington, 33 F.4th 1139

Background

In 2016 Washington officers seized hunting trophies, meat, and taxidermy from brothers Chad and Nathan Bock after an investigation showed unlawful importation of animals taken in British Columbia; items were identified by BC officer Jesse Jones.
With permission from U.S. Fish & Wildlife and Department superiors, Washington transferred the wildlife and animal parts to British Columbia for storage and potential use as evidence; the Bocks claim they received no notice of this transfer.
The Spokane County prosecutor charged the Bocks under Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.265; each entered a Stipulation to Police Reports and Order of Continuance (SOC) that, upon successful completion, triggered statutory forfeiture of the seized wildlife under Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.100(3).
The Bocks completed the SOCs, the charges were dismissed in 2019, and they sued Washington, Department officers, and the BC officer asserting Fourth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendment violations, replevin/return of property, and state tort claims; the seized items were valued at about $192,000.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officials, holding (inter alia) the automatic forfeiture statute applied and rejecting the Bocks’ due-process challenge to the transfer; the Bocks appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transferring seized wildlife to British Columbia without notice violated Fourteenth Amendment due process	Transfer outside U.S. jurisdiction functionally destroyed property interest and denied notice/hearing	Transfer did not extinguish rights; any forfeiture resulted from SOCs; claim is moot	Moot: Bocks’ completion of SOCs triggered forfeiture and mooted return claim; alternative standing deficiencies noted
Whether the Bocks are judicially estopped from challenging forfeiture after signing SOCs	SOC waiver was not knowing/voluntary so should not estop constitutional challenge	SOCs explicitly accepted forfeiture consequence; reversal would be inconsistent and unfair	Judicial estoppel applies; Bocks barred from inconsistent claim
Whether Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.100(3) is facially or as-applied unconstitutional when applied to wildlife taken outside Washington	Statute unconstitutional as applied to out-of-state/foreign-taken wildlife	Statute valid; automatic forfeiture applies when SOC entered	Bocks estopped and lack standing to press facial/as-applied challenge; district court judgment affirmed on these grounds
Whether officials are liable or entitled to qualified immunity for alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation	Officials violated clearly established due-process rights by transferring property abroad without notice	No actionable constitutional violation (claims moot/estopped), so immunity analysis unnecessary	No actionable claim; qualified immunity arguments fail because merits not reached in light of mootness/estoppel

Key Cases Cited

West Addition Cmty. Org. v. Alioto, 514 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1975) (courts must consider mootness/jurisdiction)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (case becomes moot when issues no longer live)
Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012) (government may not destroy property interest without opportunity to present claim)
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1972) (due process requires meaningful hearing before deprivation)
United States v. Pemberton, 852 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1988) (stipulation to forfeiture moots return claims)
United States v. Fischer, 833 F.2d 647 (7th Cir. 1987) (forfeiture agreement relinquishes claim to assets)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel factors and application)
City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999) (notice via public sources can satisfy due process)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (procedural violation without concrete harm does not satisfy Article III injury)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)