Lamya Brewster v. Charlie Beck
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lamya Brewster owned a vehicle loaned to Yonnie Percy, who was stopped by LAPD with a suspended license; officers impounded the vehicle under Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6(a)(1), which mandates a 30-day hold.
- Brewster, the registered owner with a valid license, appeared three days later with proof and offered to pay towing/storage fees; LAPD refused release until the 30-day period expired.
- Brewster sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a class action, alleging the mandatory 30-day impound is a warrantless seizure violating the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court dismissed, treating the 30-day impound as a valid administrative penalty not implicating the Fourth Amendment.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether the continued 30-day retention after the initial lawful impound constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mandatory 30-day impound under Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6(a) is a Fourth Amendment "seizure" requiring justification | Brewster: continued 30-day retention is a meaningful interference with possessory interests and thus a seizure under the Fourth Amendment | LAPD: initial impound was lawful under community caretaking; characterization as administrative penalty means no Fourth Amendment problem | Held: Yes. The 30-day impound is a Fourth Amendment seizure; continued detention requires constitutional justification beyond the initial seizure |
| Whether framing the 30-day hold as an administrative penalty avoids Fourth Amendment scrutiny | Brewster: Fourth Amendment governs delays in returning property regardless of penalty characterization | LAPD: legislative intent to impose administrative penalty justifies hold; initial lawful seizure suffices | Held: Court rejects that characterization as dispositive; Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment penalty questions are distinct and not dispositive of the Fourth Amendment issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (Fourth Amendment protects meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (a seizure lawful at inception can become unreasonable by manner/length of execution)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (prolonged detention of property can render seizure unreasonable)
- United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867 (9th Cir.) (warrantless seizure is per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
- United States v. Dass, 849 F.2d 414 (9th Cir.) (lengthy warrantless seizures violated the Fourth Amendment)
- Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir.) (Fourth Amendment governs continued possession of property)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (Supreme Court: Fourth Amendment covers the entirety of unlawful detention)
- Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456 (7th Cir.) (contrasting view that continued possession after lawful seizure need not be a new seizure)
- Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 72 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (district court opinion found persuasive on prolonged impound issue)