The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, November 3, 1998
Decision: Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Issues: Due Process, Hearing or Notice

Advocates

David D. Lawrence (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Jeffrey S. Sutton (For Ohio et al., as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)
Patrick S. Smith (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Police officers of the city of West Covina lawfully seized Perkins Lawrence's personal property from his home. The officers left a notice form specifying the facts of the search, its date, the searching agency, the date of the warrent, the issuing judge and his court, the persons to be contacted for information, and an itemized list of the property seized. The officers did not leave the search warrant number. Lawrence filed suit after attempts to obtain the seized property failed. The District Court ultimately ruled in favor of the city. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. It held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that Lawrence be provided a detailed notice of state procedures for the return of seized property and the information to be able to invoke the procedures, along with the information he was already provided. This meant the search warrant number must be furnished or at least the method for obtaining it.

Question

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require officers who seize someone's property lawfully to provide the owner with state procedures for the property's return?

Conclusion

No. In a decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause does not require police officers to provide property owners with information on how to recover their property in a lawful seizure. The Due Process clause only requires that officers inform property owners that something they own has been seized. Justice Kennedy said the property owner could turn to public sources to learn about the procedures available.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for City of West Covina, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, joined Thomas' concurrence
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1230/>
(last visited ).