Ferrari v. County of Suffolk
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23280
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Ferrari was arrested for speeding over 100 mph while intoxicated and his 2003 Ferrari was impounded under Suffolk County's DWI Seizure Law.
- A post-seizure retention hearing before a neutral magistrate considered whether to retain the vehicle pending forfeiture; Ferrari did not attend the first two hearings.
- The County introduced evidence of Ferrari’s multiple prior traffic offenses and DWI conviction to justify retention pendente lite.
- Ferrari’s counsel argued the County bore the burden to show alternatives (e.g., bond) could satisfy the County’s interests; no alternative-proof was presented by Ferrari.
- Judge DiNoto ordered retention of the vehicle pending the forfeiture proceeding; Ferrari later forfeited the title to Suffolk County.
- Ferrari sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming due process violations; the district court granted summary judgment for Ferrari as to liability, which the Second Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krimstock I bars retention for public safety concerns | Ferrari argues Krimstock I precludes public-safety retention pendente lite. | Suffolk argues public-safety considerations may justify retention even if not strictly necessary to forfeit. | Krimstock I allows public-safety retention in appropriate cases. |
| Whether burden shifting at retention hearings is permissible | Ferrari contends the County must disprove alternative measures before shifting burden. | Suffolk contends burden shifting after prima facie evidence is appropriate under due process. | The County may shift to the title owner to propose feasible alternatives after a prima facie case. |
| Whether Suffolk County's retention hearing complied with due process | Ferrari argues the hearing failed to meet due process by not requiring feasibility of alternatives. | Suffolk argues the procedures in place, including hardship relief, satisfy due process. | The district court erred; the County's process, with burden shifting and existing safeguards, satisfies due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (due process requires prompt hearing to test retention and seizure in comparable contexts)
- Krimstock v. Kelly (Krimstock III), 464 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2006) (addressed burdens and procedural contours in retention hearings post-seizure)
- Canavan v. City of Nassau, 1 N.Y.3d 134 (2003) (due process requires prompt post-seizure hearing; can address public-safety interests)
- Harris v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 237 (2007) (innocent co-owners’ hardship relief and procedural protections at retention hearings)
- Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977) (due process burdens and post-deprivation procedures in license suspension contexts)