city liable for illegal actions of city police chief in connection with disposition of seized private property where city had delegated responsibility for property to chief
How later courts described this case
- city liable for illegal actions of city police chief in connection with disposition of seized private property where city had delegated responsibility for property to chief
- “rationale of Parratt ... does not apply when the challenged actions comply with City policy”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
Unlike my colleagues, I do not find the applicable city regulations blatantly viola-tive of due process, nor am I confident that plaintiffs proved a municipal custom that consists essentially of ignoring the regulations and failing to give notice to lawful owners of property seized by the police. I am constrained to concur, however, solely because I read the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Zinermon v. Burch, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 975 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990), as holding that we must take a hard look at accidental deprivations of liberty or property to determine whether additional procedural safeguards would have alleviated the problem. Although the majority’s prescriptions go too far in “safeguarding” the rights of those who in most cases will not be lawful owners of seized property, I agree that some minor adjustments of the city’s regulations would have protected the property of Matthias and Bingley. Under Zinermon , therefore, they are entitled to recover.