CA11: Miami’s seizure and destruction of ptf’s “ugly” sailboat stated a 4A claim under Soldal

Plaintiff lived on his sailboat in the City of Miami on state waters. He was stopped by marine officers who complained of his lack of property sanitary facilities and not having a good enough anchor light. They accused him of having a derelict boat, which it wasn’t. Instead it was too “ugly” for Miami. He promptly fixed that. Three months later, he was on a business trip, and the City seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings without notice. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.” Hoefling v. City of Miami, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1177 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016):

In our view, Mr. Hoefling also sufficiently stated a claim for an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 60-61, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1992), the Supreme Court unanimously held that a landlord’s removal and towing of a mobile home, in violation of state law and with the assistance of sheriff’s deputies, constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment: “As a result of the state action in this case, the Soldals’ domicile was not only seized, it was literally carried away, giving new meaning to the term ‘mobile home.’ We fail to see how being unceremoniously dispossessed of one’s home in the manner alleged to have occurred here can be viewed as anything but a seizure involving the protection of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 61. In so ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that “the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures of property only when privacy or liberty is also implicated.” Id. at 65. Here the defendants’ alleged removal and destruction of Mr. Hoefling’s sailboat, under the circumstances described in the second amended complaint, similarly constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Hoefling alleged that his sailboat was not derelict, that he was not given adequate notice by the City that it was derelict and therefore subject to removal, and that the vessel was removed and destroyed by the City pursuant to a systematic “cleanup” program to get rid of ugly boats.