Two consolidated cases involved plaintiffs who were arrested during protests in August 2020 and released without charges. During their arrests, the Metropolitan Police Department seized their personal effects, including cell phones and cameras. Despite repeated requests, the plaintiffs were unable to retrieve their property for periods ranging from several months to over a year. The plaintiffs sued the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and common-law conversion. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims, reasoning that the initial seizure was reasonable and that any challenge to the continued retention was governed exclusively by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the prolonged retention of their property without justification violated the Fourth Amendment.
Circuit Judge Katsas, writing for the court, analyzed whether the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures extends beyond the moment of taking possession. The court began with the text of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable seizures. While the term 'seizure' can refer to the act of taking possession, historical definitions from the Founding era also included the ongoing state of possession or 'grip.' The court noted that at common law, actions for damages and recovery of property existed for the unlawful detention of goods, even if the original taking was lawful. This history indicates that the Fourth Amendment protects possessory interests against government infringement throughout the duration of possession. Modern precedent supports this view. In United States v. Jacobsen, the Supreme Court held that a seizure lawful at its inception can become unreasonable due to its length or manner of execution. Similarly, in Manuel v. City of Joliet, the Court applied the Fourth Amendment to pretrial detention, requiring reasonableness throughout the duration of the seizure. The court rejected the District's argument that the Fifth Amendment was the exclusive remedy, noting that multiple constitutional provisions can apply to the same conduct. The court also distinguished cases like Tate v. District of Columbia, where the government had claimed title to the property, whereas here, the government never claimed title but merely retained possession. The court concluded that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to return seized property once the legitimate interests justifying its retention, such as officer safety or evidence preservation, have dissipated.
The decision reverses the dismissal of the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims and remands the cases for further proceedings. The district court must now evaluate whether the retention of the plaintiffs' property was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also vacated the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under D.C. law and the denial of class certification, instructing the lower court to reconsider these issues in light of the new constitutional holding. This ruling establishes that law enforcement agencies must have a valid reason to hold seized property and must return it once that reason no longer exists, preventing indefinite retention without justification.