LAS Attys/ Offices: Thomas O’Brien (CDP/SLU)
Other Counsel: None
Date Filed: 1999
Nature of Claims:This action challenges the impoundment of vehicles by police and or the prosecutor in connection with a criminal case. The action was filed in response to the NYPD policy of impounding any car driven by a someone who was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
Current Status:On plaintiffs’ first appeal from the SDNY, the Second Circuit ruled that persons whose vehicles are impounded by the Police Department have a due process right to a prompt post-seizure hearing and remanded the action of the district court to establish appropriate procedures for the hearing.
On the first remand, the District Court established the location, timing, and structure of the post-seizure hearing. Defendants appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed the procedures except for the treatment of vehicles seized as arrest evidence and on that issue it remanded for further fact findings.
After that remand and subsequent appeal, the Second Circuit on September 15, 2006 held that vehicle owners have a constitutional right to judicial review of a prosecutor’s claims that a vehicle needs to be impounded as “evidence.”
On remand, the nature and timing of that judicial review, which takes place in the criminal court, was set up by the district court after hearing argument from the parties.
No. Persons Affected:Thousands of car owners throughout the metropolitan area.
Reported Decisions:Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002); 464 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2006)