Soldal v. Cook County
1992 U.S. LEXIS 7835, 506 U.S. 56, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures of property, even when the seizure does not occur in the course of a criminal investigation and does not implicate privacy or liberty interests.
Facts:
- Edward Soldal and his family lived in a trailer home on a rented lot in the Willoway Terrace mobile home park.
- The park's owner, Terrace Properties, was engaged in an eviction dispute with the Soldal family.
- While a second eviction suit was pending in state court, the park manager, Margaret Hale, decided to forcibly remove the Soldals' trailer without a court order of eviction.
- Hale requested the presence of Cook County Sheriff's deputies to prevent the Soldals from resisting the removal.
- On September 4, 1987, employees of Terrace Properties, accompanied by sheriff's deputies, arrived at the Soldal's home.
- The deputies observed as the employees disconnected the trailer's sewer, water, and phone lines, and tore off its canopy and skirting.
- A deputy informed Edward Soldal that he was there to ensure Soldal did not interfere, and a deputy lieutenant refused to accept Soldal's complaint for criminal trespass.
- In the presence of the deputies, the employees then pulled the trailer free from its moorings and towed it off the lot.
Procedural Posture:
- The Soldals sued Terrace Properties, its manager, and Cook County deputies in the U.S. District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the Soldals had failed to show the state action required for their claim.
- The Soldals, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A panel of the Seventh Circuit, assuming state action for the sake of argument, affirmed the summary judgment on the grounds that the removal of the trailer did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
- The Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed the panel's decision, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against 'pure deprivation of property' where privacy or liberty interests are not at stake.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit's ruling.
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 physical removal of a person's mobile home by private parties, with the assistance and presence of law enforcement officers, constitute a 'seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. The physical removal of a home is a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment because it constitutes a meaningful interference with the owner's possessory interests. The court rejected the Seventh Circuit's view that the Fourth Amendment only protects privacy and liberty interests, holding that the Amendment's text explicitly protects 'houses' and 'effects' from unreasonable seizures. A 'seizure' of property is a distinct constitutional event from a 'search,' which implicates privacy. The Court's precedents, including those involving the 'plain view' doctrine, confirm that the Amendment protects possessory interests in property as such. The reason for the government interference is irrelevant to the threshold question of whether the Fourth Amendment applies; what matters is the intrusion itself. Therefore, the removal of the Soldals' home, facilitated by state actors, was a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures is not confined to criminal cases or situations where a privacy interest is also violated. By holding that a 'pure' deprivation of property by state actors constitutes a seizure, the Court broadened the scope of Fourth Amendment protection into the civil context. This has major implications for § 1983 litigation, as it confirms that law enforcement officers' involvement in civil actions like evictions or repossessions must comply with the Amendment's reasonableness standard. The ruling prevents courts from dismissing Fourth Amendment claims by characterizing them as mere property disputes better suited for state tort law, ensuring a federal remedy for unreasonable, government-involved deprivations of property.
Unlock the full brief for Soldal v. Cook County