{"id":8377,"date":"2013-02-16T08:38:34","date_gmt":"2013-02-16T08:38:34","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-02-16T08:38:34","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8377","title":{"rendered":"DC: \u201cPost-and-forfeit\u201d provision of the DC Code doesn’t violate Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u201cpost-and-forfeit\u201d provision of the DC Code that permits a defendant to post bond and forfeit it rather than contest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Fox v. District of Columbia<\/a>, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20524 (D. D.C. February 15, 2013):<\/p>\n

Count 4A of Fox\u2019s second amended complaint alleges that the post-and-forfeit procedure violates the Fourth Amendment on its face: \u201cThe policy of charging arrestees money under the \u2018post and forfeit\u2019 procedure constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and so D.C. Code \u00a7 5-335.01 is unconstitutional.\u201d Sec. Am. Compl. \u00b6 246. The Fourth Amendment provides that the \u201cright of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.\u201d U.S. Const. Amend. IV. <\/p>\n

To establish an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, Fox must demonstrate that payment of collateral under the District\u2019s post-and-forfeit procedure (1) constitutes a seizure, and (2) that the seizure is unreasonable. Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 61\u201371 (1992). Fox has failed to meet both requirements. A payment under the post-and-forfeit procedure does not constitute a seizure nor is it unreasonable. \u201cA \u2018seizure\u2019 of property … occurs when \u2018there is some meaningful interference with an individual\u2019s possessory interests in that property.\u2019\u201d Id. at 61, quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). Further, a \u201cseizure\u201d is not unreasonable if it occurs with the non-coercive, voluntary consent of the owner. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 233 (1973) (\u201c[I]f under all the circumstances it has appeared that the consent was not given voluntarily \u2013 that it was coerced by threats or force, or granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority \u2013 then we have found the consent invalid and the search unreasonable.\u201d). Here, the Court has already determined that the post-and-forfeit payment is voluntary: <\/p>\n

The fundamental flaw at the heart of plaintiff\u2019s case is that while his papers are generously seasoned with strong language connoting wrongdoing \u2013 \u201cforce,\u201d \u201ccoerce,\u201d \u201cexact,\u201d \u201cdeprive,\u201d and \u201ctake,\u201d and the allegations all turn upon the city\u2019s alleged policy of \u201cmaking\u201d arrestees pay money, there simply was no coercion, taking, or deprivation inherent in the voluntary exchange that was offered and accepted in this case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mem. Op. at 2\u20133. The Court added that \u201cthe payment was a bargained for exchange whereby both parties obtain a benefit: the arrestee gains both his release and complete finality.\u201d Mem. Op. at 18. Moreover, the reasonableness of the procedure is bolstered by the fact that the statute also provides the arrestee with ninety days to reconsider the decision to pay the collateral and ask for his money back. See D.C. Code \u00a7 5-335.01(d)(6). So the District does not meaningfully or unreasonably interfere with arrestees\u2019 possessory interests in property when it accepts their voluntarily tendered collateral.<\/p>\n

Fox\u2019s Fourth Amendment facial challenge is further undermined by the Court\u2019s prior determination that \u201cthe city has asserted legitimate interests\u201d in the post-and-forfeit procedure, Mem. Op. at 18. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}