City of West Covina v. Perkins

Background

Police in West Covina executed a valid search warrant at Lawrence Perkins’s home while investigating a boarder, Marcus Marsh. Officers seized personal items, firearms, and cash. They left a notice and an itemized list but not the warrant number because the warrant was sealed. Perkins tried to recover his property, then sued the city and officers. The District Court sided with the city, the Ninth Circuit imposed a notice requirement, and the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Due Process Clause requires states or cities to give owners detailed instructions about state-law procedures for getting back seized property. The Court held it does not. The Justices said that once an owner is informed of a seizure, he or she can consult publicly available statutes, court rules, and case law to learn how to seek return. The Court contrasted the Ninth Circuit’s extensive notice demands with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(d) and state practices that do not require notice of remedies.

Real world impact

The decision means police are not constitutionally required to provide detailed instructions about state remedies when they lawfully seize property. Property owners who receive notice of a seizure must use public sources to find procedures for recovery. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, agreed with the judgment but objected to the majority’s use of procedural due process as the source of any notice rule, suggesting the Fourth Amendment and historical common‑law inventory practices might instead govern notice in future cases.