520 F. App'x 5
2d Cir.2013Background
- Constance Hines’s car was seized by Albany police in 2006 for possible forfeiture/evidentiary purposes and held during a narcotics investigation.
- Plaintiffs alleged the seizure violated due process by denying a prompt hearing to challenge continued impoundment.
- Plaintiffs argued the police failed to provide adequate process/tests of probable cause and alternative measures.
- Defendants argued the seizure was for evidentiary use, not forfeiture, and that any process provided was constitutionally sufficient.
- District court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on due process/possession claims and for defendants on other claims; appeal followed.
- Court affirms district court, holding a Krimstock-style due process requirement applies and Monell liability may attach where final policy makers deliberate on course of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required a prompt hearing for the seizure | Hines sues for lack of hearing | No mandatory hearing under applicable law | Yes, due process required prompt testing of seizure authority |
| Whether seizure was for forfeiture or evidentiary purposes | Seizure was for forfeiture; requires Krimstock safeguards | Seizure was for evidentiary purposes, not forfeiture | Seizure implicated Krimstock protections; applicable safeguards |
| Whether the police had probable cause for seizure and continued retention | Continued retention violated Fourth Amendment | Probable cause existed or inventory/search mitigated risk | Appellees prevailed; continued retention improper without proper process |
| Monell liability against City of Albany | City policy caused unconstitutional seizure | No policy-level decision causing violation | Monell liability established where final policy decisionmaker chose a course leading to violation |
| Whether summary judgment on the vehicle seizure claim was proper | Plaintiffs entitled to judgment on unlawful seizure | Qualified immunity or insufficient evidence | Affirmed; district court’s grant of partial summary judgment sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (initial Krimstock due-process framework for vehicle seizures)
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 378 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2004) (Krimstock II, expanded process requirements)
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 464 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2006) (Krimstock III, enhanced procedures for forfeiture scenarios)