.png)
The ruling stems from arrests made during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) violated the Fourth Amendment by wrongly holding personal items - including cell phones, cameras or vehicles - of people they had arrested for months or even years without just cause.
The ruling comes from two separate lawsuits originally filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of several plaintiffs in November 2021. The ACLU says many of these extended retentions stem from arrests related to racial justice protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in 2020.
“This ruling is a powerful reminder that the government cannot hold onto people’s personal property indefinitely without a valid reason," Michael Perloff, Interim Legal Director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia said. "The Fourth Amendment was written to protect against this kind of overreach, and today’s decision reinforces that safeguard. "
According to the ACLU, MPD has routinely retained cell phones seized from arrested individuals "long after any legitimate law enforcement need has passed." In a press release, the organization detailed several instances where it argued MPD violated the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. That includes an instance where MPD arrested Oyoma Asinor, a photojournalist covering a protest near Black Lives Matter Plaza in 2020, seizing his phone and camera for more than 11 months. In another instance, MPD reportedly refused to return an individual’s winter coat, forcing the person to exit the D.C. Superior Court in 15-degree weather wearing only a t-shirt.
In the ruling, Judge Gregory Katsas clarified his opinion that “When the government seizes property incident to a lawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued possession of the property must be reasonable.”
The ACLU says this ruling reverses an earlier judicial dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claims, vacates the dismissal of the D.C. law claims as well as the denial of the plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and sends the case back to the District Court.
“This opinion not only affirms the importance of the Fourth Amendment’s crucial protections, but also will protect thousands of D.C. residents who are arrested without ever being charged and need their phones, cars, and other property returned to them so they can go to work, connect with their families, and go about their lives,” said Ryan Downer, Legal Director, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The ACLU notes that the court’s decision is a "significant precedent," adding that "courts in many other jurisdictions had previously ruled that the Fourth Amendment offered no protection in these circumstances."
English (US) ·