Policy Upheld on Recovering Seized Items

Police who seize innocent owners’ property during authorized raids need not tell them how to get it back, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, rejecting a lawsuit filed by a West Covina couple.

In a unanimous decision, the high court said officers who search a home with a warrant must leave a notice saying that they were there. If the owner is absent, they must describe what was seized.

However, officers are not required, then or later, to give homeowners instructions on how to retrieve the items.

In many instances, seized items are put in the care of the judge who issued the search warrant and the homeowners must get a court order to get their property back.

The case of Lawrence and Clara Perkins showed how an ordinary couple can fall through the cracks of the legal system. For more than a year, the two were out $2,469 in cash that had been taken from their home.

The case also illustrates how the Supreme Court is unwilling to impose new rules on city and state officials.

“Neither the federal government nor any state requires officers to provide individualized notice of the procedures for seeking return of seized property,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The Constitution does not demand that the owners be given help to retrieve their money or property, he added.

In May 1993, police were looking for a suspected gang member who was wanted for questioning in a murder. He was traced to the Perkinses’ home, where he had rented a room. Police obtained a warrant to search the home. They seized photographs and an address book belonging to the suspect, as well as the cash and other items that belonged to the Perkinses.

When the couple returned home from work that day, they found their home in disarray and their doors damaged. They also found a note titled “To Whom It May Concern,” which said their home had been searched by police. The detectives left their names and phone number.

Lawrence Perkins said he called the officers but received no help in retrieving his property. The officers said they told him that he needed to go to court.

There, Lawrence Perkins said, he got nowhere. The judge who signed the warrant had gone on vacation and court staff members apparently said Perkins needed a warrant number to get the property. Perkins said he was given the wrong number.

Frustrated, the family went to a lawyer and eventually filed a lawsuit demanding the return of their property. They also sought damages for a violation of their constitutional rights. The 14th Amendment says that the state may not deprive a person of property “without due process of law.”

A year later, as the case went before a federal judge in Los Angeles, the city returned the seized money and property to the Perkinses. The judge then dismissed the lawsuit.

However, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived their claim and ruled that innocent owners have a right to “adequate notice” from the government on how to retrieve seized property. They must be told of the procedures to be followed as well as specifics, such as a necessary search warrant number.

The city of West Covina, joined by several dozen municipal agencies in California, appealed the case (West Covina vs. Perkins, 97-1230) to the Supreme Court and won the reversal Wednesday.

* QUESTIONS ON WELFARE LAW: Justices express concern about limiting benefits for new residents. A22