Court Says Police Can't Keep Property Forever After Arrest

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has clarified the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically regarding the duration of property retention following an arrest. Judge Gregory Katsas emphasized that while law enforcement can seize property during a lawful arrest, any continued possession must be reasonable. This decision challenges existing practices where police have retained personal property without sufficient legal justification, raising concerns about the infringement of individuals' property rights. The court's unanimous ruling highlights a significant gap in the legal framework surrounding property retention post-arrest, particularly in cases where no prosecution follows. Katsas noted that while immediate return of property is not mandated, the ongoing retention must adhere to the reasonableness standard set by the Fourth Amendment. This ruling places the D.C. Circuit in a minority position among federal circuits, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court review if the District of Columbia opts to appeal. The implications of this decision are profound, as it addresses a long-standing issue where law enforcement has exploited ambiguities in the Fourth Amendment. Legal experts, including Andrew Ferguson from American University, argue that this ruling could establish a crucial precedent for future cases involving the retention of personal property after lawful arrests. Michael Perloff, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, echoed this sentiment, noting that previous challenges to similar practices have often failed due to a lack of clarity on the duration of seizures under the Fourth Amendment.