City of Los Angeles v. David
155 L. Ed. 2d 946, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4059, 538 U.S. 715 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A post-deprivation hearing provided 27 days after a temporary deprivation of a minor property interest, such as money paid for car impoundment fees, does not violate the Due Process Clause when balanced against the government's significant administrative burdens.
Facts:
- On August 13, 1998, an officer of the city of Los Angeles Department of Transportation ordered Edwin David’s automobile towed from a spot where parking was forbidden.
- Edwin David paid $134.50 to recover his car.
- Edwin David believed that trees obstructed his view of the “no parking” sign and requested a hearing to recover the money.
- On September 9, 1998, 27 days after the vehicle was towed, the city held the hearing.
- The city denied Edwin David’s claim at the hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwin David brought a lawsuit in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, arguing that the city’s delay in providing a prompt hearing violated his federal right to due process.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the city.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, by a vote of 2 to 1, reversed the District Court, holding that the Constitution required the city to provide an earlier payment-recovery hearing (perhaps within 48 hours or at least within 5 days).
- The City of Los Angeles sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 27-day delay in providing a post-deprivation hearing for the recovery of impoundment and towing fees for an illegally parked car violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a 27-day delay in holding a post-deprivation hearing for the recovery of car impoundment fees does not violate the Due Process Clause because it reflects a routine delay substantially required by administrative needs. The Court applied the three factors from Mathews v. Eldridge: (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and (3) the government's interest. Regarding the first factor, the private interest in this case is a monetary interest—the temporary loss of the use of $134.50—which is less serious than the temporary deprivation of a job (as in FDIC v. Mallen) or the use of an automobile itself. Any loss in the time value of money can be compensated by interest. For the second factor, concerning accuracy, a 30-day delay in presenting evidence for a straightforward issue like illegal parking is unlikely to cause significant factual errors. Finally, the third factor, the government’s interest, strongly favors the city due to administrative necessity. The city conducts over a thousand vehicle impound hearings annually, requiring time to organize, schedule courtrooms and officials, and arrange for the appearance of towing officers, which entails significant administrative and fiscal burdens if all hearings had to be held within a few days. The administrative necessity here is comparable to the governmental interest in Mallen in protecting the banking system and preparing for hearings. Therefore, the 27-day delay is a routine delay justified by administrative needs and does not constitute a due process violation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the flexible nature of the Due Process Clause and the application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, particularly for minor property deprivations. It clarifies that administrative convenience and necessity are significant governmental interests that can justify delays in post-deprivation hearings, especially when the private interest affected is solely monetary and relatively small. The ruling effectively sets a precedent that minor, temporary monetary deprivations do not trigger the need for extremely prompt post-deprivation hearings if the government can demonstrate a substantial administrative burden.
