Kam-Almez v. United States
682 F.3d 1364
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Kam-Almaz, a U.S. citizen, was detained at Dulles Airport; ICE seized his laptop and two flash drives.
- He was allowed to copy one file; ICE indicated seizure would last up to 30 days, with an oral seven-day promise.
- Hard drive failure occurred during detention; laptop returned about 10 weeks later; government claimed efforts to minimize inconvenience.
- Kam-Almaz filed suit Jan. 5, 2009, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact bailment contract and, later, a Fifth Amendment taking claim.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed both claims; it held no plausible bailment and that the seizure did not constitute a compensable taking.
- Kam-Almaz appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the complaint failed to state a bailment claim and that no compensable taking occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly states an implied-in-fact bailment claim | Kam-Almaz alleges mutual intent and delivery via seizure; argues authority to bind government. | Seizure precludes mutual intent and voluntary delivery; lacks consideration and binding authority. | No plausible bailment claim; seizure defeats mutual intent and delivery; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the takings claim under the Fifth Amendment is viable | Seizure and retention of his laptop for security purposes constitutes a compensable taking. | Authorized seizure under police power cannot be a taking; no taking if seizure is lawful. | Takings claim dismissed; seizure falls under police power, not a compensable taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (1984) (implied-in-fact bailment remedy may exist for detained property)
- Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460 (1980) (treats absence of government tort liability and potential bailment remedies)
- Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (takings implications of detained property; limits of takings relief)
- AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (police-power seizures and takings analysis; innocence not decisive)
- Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) (government not required to compensate for property lawfully acquired or used in crime)
- Alliance Assurance Co. v. United States, 252 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1958) (implied bailment from voluntary trust or compulsory bailment for government inspection)
- Llamera v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 593 (1988) (seizure scenarios and implied bailment considerations)
- Alde, S.A. v. United States, 28 F.3d 26 (Fed. Cl. 1993) (distinguishes detention contexts from liability grounds)