Court Rules for Couple in Police Seizure of Cars

Ruling that a Santa Ana couple had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their back yard, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday that police conducted an improper search and seizure of two automobiles that they owned.

The judges, sitting in Pasadena, ruled 2 to 1 that the city violated 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure because it did not obtain warrants to search the property. Dale and Linda Conner were awarded $71,000 in damages.

The case traces its roots to a 1983 police investigation of complaints that the Conners were storing several old and inoperable cars on their property. Santa Ana police officers scaled the fence of the Conners’ property and inspected the automobiles without a warrant and without the Conners’ permission, the court said.

The Conners objected to the search and filed a complaint with the Police Department. After conducting a hearing, the department concluded that the search was proper and the City Council concurred.

In 1985, city officials, again without a warrant, broke down the fence surrounding the Conner property and removed two of the vehicles from the property. The vehicles were later destroyed.

The Conners filed suit against the city and a U.S. District Court jury ruled in 1987 that the 1983 search of the Conners’ property was unreasonable. The couple was granted damages and attorneys’ fees were awarded.

But the jury agreed with the city that the 1985 search and seizure of the vehicles was reasonable. The city had argued that a warrant wasn’t necessary for the 1985 search because the Conners had by that time been through several hearings on the issue of their cars and were aware that they were in violation of city codes.

In ruling on the Conners’ appeal of the ruling in the 1985 incident, 9th Circuit Judge Robert R. Beezer wrote that the city had the right to confiscate the cars but conducted the seizure improperly. Police should have obtained a warrant before going onto the Conners’ property.

“The Conners had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their enclosed, fenced yard. That expectation of privacy remained the same before and after the hearings,” Beezer wrote.

“The warrant requirement applied to the city when, without the Conners’ consent, it broke down their fence, entered their property and seized their automobiles, regardless of how ‘reasonable’ the warrantless search appeared in light of the pre-seizure process afforded the Conners.”