Kincaid v. Government of the District of Columbia
177 F. Supp. 3d 548
D.D.C.2016Background
- D.C. law allows certain misdemeanor arrestees to immediately resolve charges by "post-and-forfeit": paying a statutorily set sum to obtain a final resolution that is not a conviction (D.C. Code § 5-335.01).
- The statute requires written notice at the time of the offer informing arrestees of the amount, their right to contest, and that forfeiture becomes final after 90 days, during which the arrestee may move the Superior Court to set aside the forfeiture.
- Four plaintiffs (Kincaid, Bugg Bey, Tachebele, Crawford) used the post-and-forfeit procedure for various low-level charges and did not move to set aside the forfeitures.
- Plaintiffs sued the District claiming violations of the Fourth Amendment, procedural and substantive Fifth Amendment due process, void-for-vagueness, and conversion; they sought class certification and monetary relief.
- The District moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court treated prior D.D.C. decisions rejecting similar challenges as persuasive and dismissed the amended complaint in full, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the conversion claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural Due Process | Post-and-forfeit deprives property without adequate notice/hearing because arrestees were forced to pay rather than get full criminal process | Post-and-forfeit is voluntary; arrestees receive written notice and can choose full criminal process or later seek to set aside forfeiture | Dismissed — procedure provides adequate process; payment is a choice and Superior Court motion remedies suffice |
| Substantive Due Process | The scheme substantively deprives liberty/property by allowing punishment without proper adjudication | The offenses involved are legitimate regulatory crimes; fines up to $100 are constitutionally permissible | Dismissed — no fundamental right implicated; punishment via fines for these offenses is lawful |
| Fourth Amendment (seizure/probable cause) | Plaintiffs were seized/arrested and money taken without probable cause | Procedure does not authorize arrests without probable cause; payment was voluntary, not a seizure; municipal liability requires factual showing of a policy causing unlawful arrests | Dismissed — no Monell facts pled; payments not unlawful seizures; arrests, if unlawful, require claim against officers or proof of municipal policy/custom |
| Vagueness and Discretion | Post-and-forfeit is unconstitutionally vague and invites arbitrary enforcement | Post-and-forfeit is a procedural option, not a criminal statute punishing conduct; plaintiffs received the option | Dismissed — doctrine inapplicable; statute is not a vague criminal prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Fox v. District of Columbia, 851 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2012) (rejecting similar post-and-forfeit challenges)
- Fox v. District of Columbia, 923 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D.D.C. 2013) (same)
- Hodges v. Gov’t of District of Columbia, 975 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2013) (same)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (Monell causation principles)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (probable-cause requirement for seizures)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (prompt probable-cause review satisfies due process)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (post-arrest procedures not vitiated by unlawful arrest)