NCJ Number
187401
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Volume: 90 Issue: 3 Dated: Spring 2000 Pages: 1013-1045
Date Published
2000
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This note concerns due process and post-deprivation remedies for property seized in criminal investigations.
Abstract
In City of West Covina v. Perkins, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require law enforcement officers to give property owners notice of the State law remedies available to retrieve property lawfully seized in criminal investigations. The note argues that Perkins correctly rejected the Ninth Circuit's expansive notice requirement because it was unwarranted and unsupported by precedent. It further argues that the Court's decision will not have an adverse impact on future property deprivation cases if it is properly limited to seizures similar to those in Perkins. However, the note claims, the majority should have based its "notice of seizure" requirement, discussed in dicta, on the principles espoused by the Fourth Amendment's requirement for specific warrants and its guarantee against unreasonable seizures, rather than on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Notes