386 F. Supp. 3d 220
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- On February 25, 2014, Nassau County police responded to a 911 domestic call at Marc Weinstein’s home; officers observed firearms in the house and confiscated 39 longarms, nine handguns, and Weinstein’s handgun license without a search warrant. Weinstein consented to surrender of handguns but disputes seizure of longarms.
- NCPD policy OPS 10023 governs confiscation and post-seizure review of firearms after domestic incidents and requires forms, interviews, NCIC checks, and an administrative review before return or destruction.
- Weinstein’s handguns and handgun license were returned in February 2015; his longarms were returned in March 2015 after he (through counsel) completed required paperwork; the record shows many longarms seizures in the precinct remained unresolved for years.
- Weinstein sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Monell liability against Nassau County and NCPD officials; motions for summary judgment by both sides were fully briefed.
- The Court evaluated whether OPS 10023 complies with prior district precedent (Razzano), Second Circuit guidance (Panzella), and the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test for procedural due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment: seizure/suspension of handgun license | Weinstein: confiscation and suspension of license infringed his right to keep and bear arms | Defendants: handgun licensing is a statutory privilege subject to discretion and public-safety regulations | Court: grants summary judgment to defendants — no Second Amendment violation; intermediate scrutiny applies and NY licensing regime is substantially related to public safety |
| Fourth Amendment: warrantless seizure of firearms (handguns vs longarms) | Weinstein: warrantless seizure of longarms was unreasonable | Defendants: exigent circumstances and consent justified seizure | Court: no Fourth Amendment claim for handguns (consent); disputed facts re: longarms (timing, consent, exigency) preclude summary judgment — claim may proceed |
| Procedural Due Process (post-seizure process for longarms) | Weinstein: OPS 10023 fails to provide prompt, meaningful post-deprivation hearing as required by Mathews and Razzano | Defendants: OPS 10023 provides thorough post-seizure investigative procedures sufficient to protect due process interests | Court: grants Weinstein summary judgment on Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process for longarms — Mathews balance and Razzano require a prompt post-deprivation hearing; current process creates risk of erroneous, prolonged deprivation |
| Monell (municipal liability) | Weinstein: seizure and deficient procedures reflect county policy/custom causing deprivation | Defendants: deny municipal liability arguing procedures are adequate | Court: denies defendants’ summary judgment on Monell — because OPS 10023 found to violate procedural due process, Monell challenge survives |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment against the States)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-part test for what process is due)
- Panzella v. Sposato, 863 F.3d 210 (2d Cir.) (post-seizure hearing requirement analysis for longarms)
- Razzano v. County of Nassau, 765 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (district precedent requiring prompt post-deprivation hearing for seized longarms)