Simms v. District of Columbia
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93052
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Simms’s car was seized by MPD on May 29, 2011 after a firearm was found in the vehicle.
- Simms was acquitted of all charges in December 2011, but the District kept the car pending civil forfeiture proceedings.
- Forfeiture actions were filed in Superior Court on June 1, 2012 and could take about a year to resolve.
- Simms could not challenge the seizure or continued detention prior to judgment in the forfeiture case.
- Bond procedures required by DC law were available but not timely used by Simms, and the District later waived the bond for Simms.
- The court held a preliminary injunction hearing and concluded the District’s failure to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing violated due process, granting relief while forfeiture proceedings continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prompt post-seizure hearing is required by due process | Krimstock/Mathews require prompt review of seizure | Barker framework governs delay in forfeiture context | Yes, Mathews factors require prompt post-seizure due process review |
| What due-process framework applies to vehicle seizure pendente lite | Mathews applies to property deprivations pending forfeiture | Barker applies to delay in forfeiture actions | Mathews framework applies;Krimstock guidance adopted |
| Whether the balance of equities and public interest favor issuing a preliminary injunction | Protects constitutional rights and prevents irreparable harm | Injunction would disrupt forfeiture program | Yes, balance and public interest favor granting injunction with conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (prompt post-seizure hearing required in vehicle forfeiture pending actions)
- Good v. United States, 510 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (due process requires notice and hearing before deprivation of property absent exigent circumstances)
- Smith v. City of Chicago, 524 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2008) (forfeiture context; reliance on Good; intermediate relief possible)
- United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 461 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1983) (delay analysis under Barker framework for delay between seizure and forfeiture action)
- Von Neumann v. United States, 474 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (delay between seizure and remission proceedings; Barker analysis)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972) (pre-judgment seizure hearing necessary for property rights)