E.D.Pa.: Defendant has a protectable interest in property from a seizure even though the government contends it was stolen

The fact that defendant was alleged to have stolen property did not diminish his Fourth Amendment interest in the property in the seizure. Langbord v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 645 F. Supp. 2d 381 (E.D. Pa. 2009):

The Government further argues that it was justified in taking the coins because “the law recognizes a distinction in Fourth Amendment analysis where the government recovers its own property.” (Defs.’ Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J. Due Process & Illegal Seizure at 18.) Courts have consistently rejected this type of argument. For example, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has highlighted that “[a] seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with a person’s possessory interests in that property,” and that person’s “right against unreasonable seizures is not vitiated” merely because the Government believes that it is the rightful owner of the property in question. Lesher v. Reed, 12 F.3d 148, 150 (8th Cir. 1994). Even where “a claim to continued possession is in dispute, that possessory interest is still constitutionally protected.” Dixon v. Lowery, 302 F.3d 857, 864 (8th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[c]onstitutional protection of possessory interests is not diminished when the government, as opposed to a private individual, has paramount right to possession.” Rossi v. Town of Pelham, 35 F. Supp. 2d 58, 69 (D.N.H. 1997) (citing Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 300-310 (1967)). Accordingly, we find that the Government’s belief that the coins had been stolen did not diminish Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and did not change the nature of the Government’s seizure.

Defendant’s consent was voluntary even though he was on morphine at the hospital. The hospital records showed he was alert and talking with medical staff. “The fact that an individual is under the influence of drugs, alcohol or extreme physical pain does not necessarily render consent involuntary. See United States v. Medico, 557 F.2d 309, 312-13 (2d Cir. 1977) (consent to search defendant’s apartment was freely and voluntarily given notwithstanding that on the day she consented to the search, she had used marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methadon); ….” United States v. Irving, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66000 (N.D. N.Y. July 27, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.