Clement v. J & E Service

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY CLEMENT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF GLENDALE, No. 05-56692

Defendant,

 D.C. No.

CV-02-02555-FMC

and

J&E SERVICE INC., d/b/a Monterey OPINION

Tow Service; J. YOUNG, an

individual,

Defendants-Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Florence Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

July 11, 2007—Pasadena, California

Filed March 11, 2008

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Andrew J. Kleinfeld

and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Chief Judge Kozinski

2347

2350 CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC.

COUNSEL

Donald E. Chadwick, Northridge, California, for the appel-

lant.

Michael E. Sayer and Damian J. Nassiri, Claims Legal Man-

agement, APC, Irvine, California, for the appellees.

CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC. 2351

OPINION

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

We determine the extent to which the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to provide

notice before it may tow a vehicle parked in violation of state

registration laws, if the owner has dutifully complied with an

alternate form of registration.

Facts

Virginia Clement1 lived in a residential hotel and parked

her 1981 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz in the hotel’s parking lot.

The car had not been driven in seven years and Clement did

not keep the car’s registration current. But she did dutifully

complete an alternate form of vehicle registration, she had the

hotel’s permission to park there and the car was in its proper

space. Without so much as a letter, a knock on the door, a

note on her windshield or even a parking ticket, the Glendale

police towed and impounded Clement’s car. They left no clue

to where it had gone. Only later did Clement discover that it

had been towed for allegedly violating California vehicle reg-

istration laws.

The process started when Glendale police officer Young,

on a routine patrol, noticed expired registration stickers on the

car. He ran the plates and learned that Clement had filed a

“planned non-operation” (PNO) certificate with the state DMV.2

A PNO certificate allows vehicle owners to avoid paying for

registration and insurance, so long as they don’t drive on pub-

lic roads or park in publicly accessible parking lots. Cal. Veh.

1

Virginia Clement has been succeeded in this litigation by her daughter,

Mary Clement.

2

As the district court resolved the case on summary judgment, we

assume Clement’s version of events. Meyers v. Redwood City, 400 F.3d

765, 769-70 (9th Cir. 2005).

2352 CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC.

Code § 4000(a)(1). California law authorizes local police to

tow and impound PNO vehicles found in publicly accessible

parking lots, and to release the vehicle only after it has been

properly registered. Cal. Veh. Code § 22651(o). Officer

Young ordered Clement’s car towed because he believed the

car was parked in a public lot in violation of the statute.3

After discovering what happened to her car, Clement did

the American thing: She sued. Among other claims, she

brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Officer Young and against the company that executed the

tow, claiming that they violated her constitutional right to due

process by impounding her car without giving her advance

notice, and that they had unconstitutionally seized her car.

The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on

all of her claims. In a prior appeal, we reversed the district

court’s grant of summary judgment on her due process claim.

Clement v. City of Glendale, 132 F. App’x 147, 148 (9th Cir.

2005) (unpublished). On remand, the district court determined

that Clement’s constitutional right to due process required the

police to try to notify her before impounding her car. The dis-

trict court nevertheless granted summary judgment to Officer

Young on the basis of qualified immunity and to the towing

company based on a “good faith” defense. Clement appeals.

Analysis

[1] 1. No state may “deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law.”4 The courts have

3

We need not decide whether the hotel parking lot was “publicly acces-

sible” under the California Vehicle Code, nor whether the tow was proper

under state law. We assume they were.

4

In deciding a motion for summary judgment in a section 1983 action

we are bound to look first to whether there was a constitutional violation

and then to whether defendants have qualified immunity, even if the quali-

fied immunity inquiry would resolve the case more easily. See Saucier v.

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); Meyers, 400 F.3d at 770. Some have

CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC. 2353

long interpreted this—along with the parallel restriction on

the federal government in the Fifth Amendment—to require

that notice generally be given before the government may

seize property. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust

Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950) (“Many controversies have

raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process

Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they

require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudi-

cation be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing

appropriate to the nature of the case.”); see also Zinermon v.

Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132 (1990) (“In situations where the

State feasibly can provide a predeprivation hearing before tak-

ing property, it generally must do so regardless of the ade-

quacy of a postdeprivation tort remedy to compensate for the

taking.”); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.

532, 542 (1985) (“We have described the root requirement of

the Due Process Clause as being that an individual be given

an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any sig-

nificant property interest.” (quotation marks omitted)). In

other words, the government may not take property like a

thief in the night; rather, it must announce its intentions and

give the property owner a chance to argue against the taking.

[2] Of course, there are numerous exceptions to this general

rule: The government need not give notice in an emergency,

questioned the logic of this “rigid ‘order of battle,’ ” Brosseau v. Haugen,

543 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2004) (Breyer, J., concurring), but we are bound

to follow it until further notice. We are free to muse, however, that the

Saucier rule may lead to the publication of a lot of bad constitutional law

that is, effectively, cert-proof. If a court of appeals holds that a constitu-

tional right exists under Saucier in step one, but that the right is not clearly

established (as we do in this case), then neither party will have both the

incentive and the standing to petition for review of the constitutional rul-

ing. It may be many years before another case arises that presents the same

issue in a form ripe for review by the Supreme Court. See generally

Thomas Healy, The Rise of Unnecessary Constitutional Rulings, 83 N.C.

L. Rev. 847 (2005).

2354 CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC.

nor if notice would defeat the entire point of the seizure, nor

when the interest at stake is small relative to the burden that

giving notice would impose. See, e.g., Zinermon, 494 U.S. at

132 (“[I]n situations where a predeprivation hearing is unduly

burdensome in proportion to the liberty interest at stake . . .

postdeprivation remedies might satisfy due process.” (citation

omitted)); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)

(weighing “the fiscal and administrative burdens that [an]

additional or substitute procedural requirement would

entail”). Nevertheless, the default rule is advance notice and

the state must present a strong justification for departing from

the norm. The case here is close. Normally, of course,

removal of an automobile is a big deal, as the absence of

one’s vehicle can cause serious disruption of life in twenty-

first century America. See Scofield v. City of Hillsborough,

862 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The uninterrupted use of

one’s vehicle [on public roads] is a significant and substantial

private interest.”). But Clement couldn’t legally drive her car

on public roads, nor does it appear that she was making off-

road use of the vehicle.5 The car just sat in the parking lot,

unused. Thus the owner’s normal interest in continued use of

his vehicle—as a means of getting from place to place—has

no force here. Nor does there appear to be a significant risk

of erroneous towing.6

[3] However, having one’s car towed, even one that’s not

operational, imposes significant costs and burdens on the

5

An unregistered car with a PNO certificate can still be operated on pri-

vate roads—such as on a farm or ranch. See Cal. Veh. Code § 360

(“highway” as used in registration law is limited to roads “publicly main-

tained and open to the use of the public”); Meraz v. Farmers Ins. Exch.,

92 Cal. App. 4th 321, 325 (Ct. App. 2001) (a vehicle kept off-street at a

private residence need not be registered).

6

The owner—as here—may contest that the car was legally parked or

properly registered. These disputes are likely rare; there is no evidence

before us that the DMV’s registration information is consistently outdated,

nor is there reason to believe that there are frequent debates over whether

a given parking facility is publicly accessible or not.

CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC. 2355

car’s owner. To begin with, there is no place for the police to

leave notice that the car has been towed, so the owner suffers

some anxiety when he discovers that the vehicle has mysteri-

ously disappeared from its parking spot. Then, after discover-

ing the car’s new whereabouts, the owner will normally have

to travel to the towing garage to retrieve it, which may

involve significant cost for someone who doesn’t have an

operational vehicle to drive. And, of course, the garage won’t

release the car unless the owner pays towing, impound and

storage fees.7

[4] Imposition of these burdens and costs cannot be justi-

fied as a means of deterring illegal parking. The punishment

for illegal parking is a fine, which is normally imposed by

affixing a ticket to the windshield. A ticket can also serve as

notice of the illegality and a warning that the car will be

towed if not moved or properly registered. The costs and bur-

dens on the car owner associated with a tow can only be justi-

fied by conditions that make a tow necessary and appropriate,

such as that the car is parked in the path of traffic, blocking

a driveway, obstructing a fire lane or appears abandoned. A

tow may also be appropriate where there are no current regis-

tration stickers and police can’t be sure that the owner won’t

move or hide the vehicle, rather than pay the fine for illegal

parking. See Scofield, 862 F.2d at 764 (authorizing towing in

cases where the state has no current information on the where-

abouts of the owner because notice in such a case could allow

the owner to abscond with the vehicle); see also Graff v.

Nicholl, 370 F. Supp. 974, 983 (N.D. Ill. 1974) (requiring

7

The owner might also dispute the validity of the tow, in which case

California law provides for a hearing within 48 hours. Cal. Veh. Code

§ 22852(c). If the owner is successful in his challenge, the car will pre-

sumably be released without the payment of any fees. However, we must

assume that the tow was proper under state law. Our concern is whether

resorting to towing in the first instance, rather than ticketing the car first,

or giving the owner some other form of advance notice and an opportunity

to move or register the car before it is impounded, is consistent with the

requirements of due process.

2356 CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC.

notice “only to those owners whose identity may be practica-

bly ascertained”). In such situations the tow provides security

for the payment of the fine—a sort of in rem arrest and bail

procedure.

[5] None of these circumstances are present here. As best

the record reflects, the car was not blocking anyone’s path

and the owner of the parking lot—the hotel where Clement

was staying—had given its consent. Nor was this a situation

where the owner might conceal the car instead of paying the

ticket: As Officer Young knew, Clement had a valid PNO cer-

tificate, which meant the DMV had a current address for her.

And, as Officer Young could have figured out, had he both-

ered to make the effort, the address where the vehicle was

registered was the very hotel in whose parking lot the car was

parked. The chances that the car owner would abscond with-

out paying any ticket the officer left on the windshield were

very small indeed.8

The officer had several options open to him in these cir-

cumstances. He could have gone to the front desk of the hotel,

asked to see the owner of the Eldorado Biarritz and told her

personally that she needed to register the car or move it. This

is what one might have expected from a conscientious public

servant confronted with a car parked at the owner’s dwelling.

Short of that, the officer might have written a ticket and left

it at the front desk of the hotel, with a verbal warning that the

car had to be moved or registered—which the hotel clerk

could have been expected to deliver with the ticket. Or, the

officer could simply have written a ticket and left it on the wind-

shield.9

8

California law calls for a fine of not more than $250 for parking an

unregistered vehicle in a public lot. Cal. Veh. Code § 42001.8. It would

have been a simple task to mail a citation to the address on Clement’s

PNO certificate if she hid the vehicle instead of paying the fine.

9

We do not prescribe a particular procedure for giving notice; it is up

to the government to develop a policy that will result in sufficient notice

CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC. 2357

[6] Had Officer Young followed any of these alternative

courses of action, he might then have had to return to the

property a few days later to determine whether the car had

been moved or registered. But this doesn’t seem like a very

significant burden for an officer whose job it is, after all, to

patrol the neighborhood looking for ways to protect and serve

the public. In short, we see very little by way of a legitimate

government interest in ordering a tow of the vehicle in the

first instance, rather than giving the owner notice and an

opportunity to avoid the cost and hassle of having to deal with

a towed vehicle. Thus, we hold that the government must

attempt to notify the owner of a vehicle parked in violation of

a valid PNO certificate before the government may tow and

impound it.

Our holding today dovetails with Scofield, where we held

that there was a due process requirement that notice be given

—usually in the form of a ticket placed on the windshield—

before police could tow apparently abandoned vehicles that

are otherwise legally parked. Scofield, 862 F.2d at 764. We

reasoned that giving notice would be a minor inconvenience

for the police in the case of an abandoned vehicle, and might

even advance the state’s goal of removing abandoned vehicles

from public places, as an abandoned vehicle may be removed

by its owner after being ticketed. Id. Similarly, leaving notice

on an unregistered vehicle is a relatively light burden that is

consistent with the state’s interest in encouraging removal of

unregistered vehicles from public places.

Officer Young could have avoided years of litigation and

needless hassle for himself, the Glendale Police Department,

being given to car owners before impoundment. See Morrissey v. Brewer,

408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972) (“[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such

procedural protections as the particular situation demands.”); Cafeteria &

Rest. Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961) (“Due process,

unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content

unrelated to time, place and circumstances.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2358 CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC.

the towing company, the courts, Ms. Clement and her daugh-

ter, by simply erring on the side of caution and good public

service by letting her know that her vehicle was illegally

parked. Instead, the rush to tow led to this protracted litigation

that, no doubt, has consumed far more city resources than it

would have taken to properly notify Clement.

[7] 2. Officer Young asserts qualified immunity as a

defense to liability. See Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 167

(1992); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982); Jen-

sen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570, 576 (9th Cir. 2000). Gov-

ernment officials performing discretionary functions “are

shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their con-

duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu-

tional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

[8] Officer Young did not violate Clement’s clearly estab-

lished right by calling for her car to be towed. The constitu-

tional requirement at issue—that pre-towing notice be given

before a car with a valid PNO certificate may be removed

from a parking lot matching the owner’s address—was not

clearly established at the time of Officer Young’s actions.

Neither the text of the Constitution nor our caselaw clearly

spoke to the balance between the rights of citizens to pre-

deprivation notice and the authority of police to enforce regis-

tration statutes. While due process generally requires notice

before the government may deprive a citizen of his property,

see pp. 2352-54 supra, our caselaw recognizes many excep-

tions. See id.; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984);

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981), overruled on

other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328

(1986). We have never held that municipalities must always

notify vehicle owners before towing. In fact, our most recent

decision involving municipal towing of unregistered vehicles

—admittedly in a different context—found there to be no

right to pre-deprivation notice. Scofield, 862 F.2d at 764. It

would not have been unreasonable for Officer Young to have

CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC. 2359

interpreted this caselaw as not requiring that notice be given

before towing an unregistered vehicle with a valid PNO cer-

tificate. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judg-

ment in favor of defendant Young.

[9] 3. Monterey Tow Service, the private towing com-

pany that actually towed Clement’s vehicle, may not assert

qualified immunity because that defense is generally not

available to private defendants in section 1983 lawsuits. See

Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 168. However, the courts have previously

held open the possibility that private defendants may assert a

“good faith” defense to a section 1983 claim. See, e.g., Rich-

ardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 413-14 (1997); Wyatt, 504

U.S. at 169; Jensen, 222 F.3d at 580 n.5.

[10] The facts of this case justify allowing Monterey Tow

Service to assert such a good faith defense. The company did

its best to follow the law and had no reason to suspect that

there would be a constitutional challenge to its actions. The

tow was authorized by the police department, conducted

under close police supervision and appeared to be permissible

under both local ordinance and state law. The constitutional

defect—a lack of notice to the car’s owner—could not have

been observed by the towing company at the time when the

tow was conducted; there would be no easy way for a private

towing company to know whether the owner had been noti-

fied or not. Nor would the towing company be aware of the

other facts and circumstances that would be relevant in deter-

mining whether giving notice was constitutionally required.

The responsibility to give notice falls on the police, thus the

constitutional violation arose from the inactions of the police

rather than from any act or omission by the towing company.

Having acted on instructions from the Glendale Police

Department that specifically called for the tow, Monterey

Tow Service is entitled to invoke the good faith defense.

Monterey Tow Service did not waive its good faith defense.

It asserted—in both its answer and motion for summary

2360 CLEMENT v. J&E SERVICE INC.

judgment—that its employees were acting under the appar-

ently lawful direction and authority of the city and officer.

This was sufficient to put plaintiffs on notice that Monterey

Tow Service intended to raise a good faith defense. As there

is no disputed question of material fact underlying the

defense, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judg-

ment to Monterey Tow Service.

[11] 4. Clement’s seizure claim should not be reinstated.

Our recent decision in Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d

858, 865 (9th Cir. 2005), held that the government has the

power to seize vehicles if “the driver is unable to remove the

vehicle from a public location without continuing its illegal

operation.” It does not contradict or overrule Scofield.

AFFIRMED.