Gerald Booker v. The City of Saint Paul
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Booker was arrested for a fourth DWI on May 30, 2011, and his car was seized under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, Subdiv. 1(e)(1).
- The statute authorizes forfeiture upon the designated offense, with ownership vesting in the agency upon commission of the offense.
- A Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit instructed Booker to demand a judicial determination within 30 days via a civil complaint; filing fee was $320.
- Booker did not file within 30 days; he waited over seven months before seeking relief and later engaged counsel.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling the statutory post-seizure review satisfied due process.
- Booker pursued § 1983 claims asserting due process violations and an unlawful Fourth Amendment seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute's post-seizure review satisfies due process | Booker argues no automatic post-deprivation hearing; fee and delay violate due process | Judicial determination provision suffices for due process; no automatic hearing required | Statute satisfied due process; process available but Booker did not pursue it |
| Whether the forfeiture statute constitutes an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure | Seizure and potential delays were unreasonable under Fourth Amendment | Retention was lawful given designation and lack of proven prejudice; no entitlement to return | No Fourth Amendment violation; seizure was authorized and no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for due-process adequacy)
- Coleman v. Watt, 40 F.3d 255 (8th Cir. 1994) (promptness and adequacy of hearings balanced against government interests)
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (due-process requirements in vehicle forfeiture; post-seizure protections)
- Krentz v. Robertson, 228 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2000) (available procedures must be pursued; failure to pursue waives due process claim)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges to statutes are very difficult)
- Laase v. Cnty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2011) (post-deprivation remedy considerations; prejudice requirements)
- Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977) (public-safety interest supports due-process-balancing in seizures)