Mark A. Lee v. City of Chicago
2003 WL 21196550, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10254, 330 F.3d 456 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures is limited to the initial act of dispossession and does not extend to the government's subsequent retention of lawfully seized property. A seizure is a single, temporally limited act, and the conditions for the property's return are not governed by the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard.
Facts:
- Mark A. Lee was driving his car down a Chicago street on June 9, 2001, when it was struck by stray gunfire.
- Chicago police officers impounded Lee's car to search for bullets as evidence for their investigation.
- Ten days later, on June 19, 2001, the City of Chicago informed Lee that they no longer needed his car for evidentiary purposes.
- The City notified Lee that he could not retrieve his car until he paid all applicable towing and storage fees or requested a hearing.
- The notice warned that if he did not pay or pursue a hearing within thirty days, the City could dispose of his car.
- Unable to pay the demanded amount immediately, Lee hired a lawyer and negotiated a payment.
- When Lee retrieved his car thirty-one days after its impoundment, he discovered the City had spray-painted large inventory numbers on its hood and side panels.
- The City did not offer to pay for the damage or discount the fees Lee had paid.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark A. Lee filed a complaint in federal district court against the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, later amending it to represent two classes.
- The City of Chicago moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of standing under FRCP 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss.
- The district court held that Lee lacked standing to challenge the spray-painting of his car and that he failed to state a claim under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment regarding the towing and storage fees.
- Lee (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the City of Chicago as the appellee.
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 the government's refusal to return a lawfully seized vehicle to its owner, after the law enforcement purpose for the seizure has ended, unless the owner pays towing and storage fees, constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, J.
No, the government's refusal to return a lawfully seized vehicle after the law enforcement purpose has ended, conditioned upon payment of fees, does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. A 'seizure' is a single, temporally limited act of taking possession, not a continuous state of holding property. The Fourth Amendment protects an individual's interest in retaining property, not regaining it after a lawful seizure has occurred. Once property is lawfully seized with probable cause, the seizure is complete and reasonable. Any subsequent dispute over the conditions for the property's return, such as the imposition of fees, is a matter governed by other legal principles like due process or state property law, not the Fourth Amendment. Because Lee did not demonstrate that his state-law remedies for the fee dispute were inadequate, his substantive due process claim also fails.
Concurring - Wood, J.
No, while I agree with the outcome, the majority's reasoning is too broad and risks creating a constitutional gap. Rather than holding that the Fourth Amendment is entirely inapplicable to the continued detention of property, the focus should remain on reasonableness. In this case, the City's conditioning the car's return on the payment of actual costs for towing and storage was not unreasonable. However, a blanket rule that the Fourth Amendment has no role after the initial seizure is undesirable. A more appropriate constitutional framework for a claim involving the temporary government use of an innocent person's property might be the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which requires just compensation when private property is taken for public use.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the temporal scope of a Fourth Amendment 'seizure' with respect to property, defining it strictly as the initial act of dispossession. By rejecting the 'continuing seizure' theory, the court diverts challenges over the government's post-seizure retention of property away from the Fourth Amendment. This forces plaintiffs to seek remedies through state law or other constitutional provisions like substantive due process or the Takings Clause, which often have higher procedural hurdles, such as demonstrating inadequate state remedies. The concurrence highlights the potential 'constitutional gap' this creates, leaving individuals with fewer federal protections against unreasonable government retention of their property, and points future litigants toward the Fifth Amendment as a potential alternative avenue for relief.
