Walters v. Wolf
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22297
8th Cir.2011Background
- Walters's handgun and ammunition were seized during his February 11, 2007 arrest for an outstanding warrant.
- Walters had valid ownership, Missouri registration, and a carry permit for the handgun.
- City Chief Wolf refused to return the firearm after a St. Louis County court dismissed related charges and Edmundson warrant lapsed.
- City policy required a court order to release seized firearms; officers cited this policy to withhold Walters's gun.
- Walters filed a §1983 action alleging procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment) and a Second Amendment claim; district court granted summary judgment for City and Wolf.
- This appeal concerns whether due process required predeprivation process or whether postdeprivation replevin suffices, and whether Walters has a Second Amendment right to a specific firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postdeprivation replevin suffices for procedural due process. | Walters allege established policy precludes adequate postdeprivation remedy. | City/Wolf relied on postdeprivation remedy and policy-based safeguards. | Reversed; due-process requires more than postdeprivation remedy in this context. |
| Whether Walters has a Second Amendment right to possess a specific firearm. | Heller/McDonald protect individual right to keep and bear arms, including a specific gun. | Second Amendment protects general right, not a specific firearm. | affirmed summary judgment on Second Amendment claim (no violation shown for a specific gun). |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for due process protections when depriving property)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (postdeprivation remedies generally enough for random/unauthorized losses)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (Parratt/Hudson as Mathews framework applied to postdeprivation process)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (state-employee unilateral acts may not require predeprivation process)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (postdeprivation remedy cannot defeat predeprivation safeguards when state action destroys entitlement)
- Lathon v. City of St. Louis, 242 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2001) (refusal to return seized property not a random/unauthorized act; postdeprivation remedy insufficient)
- Coleman v. Watt, 40 F.3d 255 (8th Cir. 1994) (availability of postdeprivation remedies relevant only where acts are random/unauthorized)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual right to possess arms, with limits)