N.D.Fla.: Temporary beachfront closure because of Covid restrictions not a 4A seizure

Temporary closure of part of plaintiffs’ beach use inland from the public beach because of Covid restrictions was not a Fifth Amendment taking nor a Fourth Amendment seizure. Ki Fla. Properties v. Walton County, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226830 (N.D.Fla. Oct. 15, 2021):

Finally, the plaintiffs assert that the beach closure was an unreasonable seizure of their property in violation of the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs’ property was not seized; its use was restricted. And even if the restriction on use could be deemed a seizure, the claim would fail, because the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable seizures. As set out above, closing the beaches, private as well as public, was a reasonable public-health measure based on what was known at that time about the spread of covid-19. Restricting the plaintiffs’ use of their property in an effort to hold off the pandemic was equally permissible whether viewed under the Takings Clause or the Fourth Amendment.

The plaintiffs have made clear they assert only that their property was seized, not that law enforcement officers conducted an unconstitutional search by entering the property. And the ordinance itself says nothing about the ability of officers to go on the plaintiffs’ land. That officers occasionally went on the plaintiffs’ property to address violations they observed—to insist on compliance—was not objectionable. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit an officer from going onto unfenced property to address an ongoing violation of the law. The record does not indicate the county authorized officers to go on the plaintiffs’ land over objection for any other purpose.

The county is entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim.