SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(US)(ca6) 241

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Melisa Ingram – Appellant
Versus
Wayne County Mich. – Respondent



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ MELISA INGRAM; ROBERT REEVES; STEPHANIE │ WILSON, │ Plaintiffs-Appellees, > No. 22-1262 │ │ v. │ │ WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:20-cv-10288—George Caram Steeh III, District Judge.

Argued: May 4, 2023

Decided and Filed: August 31, 2023

Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Davidde A. Stella, WAYNE COUNTY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Wesley Hottot, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, Seattle, Washington, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Davidde A. Stella, WAYNE COUNTY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Wesley Hottot, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, Seattle, Washington, Kirby Thomas West, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.

BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which GIBBONS and THAPAR, JJ., joined. THAPAR, J. (pp. 26–35), delivered a separate concurring opinion. No. 22-1262 Ingram v. Wayne County, Mich. Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs allege the government of Wayne County, Michigan has a policy or practice of seizing and holding vehicles while taking months to decide whether to initiate forfeiture proceedings. Plaintiffs claim they were not provided an opportunity to be heard about the detention of their vehicles and that this failure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that plaintiffs are entitled to the requested hearing. We agree and hold that Wayne County violated that Constitution when it seized plaintiffs’ personal vehicles—which were vital to their transportation and livelihoods— with no timely process to contest the seizure. We further hold that Wayne County was required to provide an interim hearing within two weeks to test the probable validity of the deprivation. Accordingly, we AFFIRM and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Three individuals in Detroit brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that Wayne County has a policy or practice of seizing vehicles and their contents without probable cause that the property is connected to a crime.1 According to plaintiffs, Wayne County seizes vehicles simply because of the vehicle’s location in an area generally associated with crime. Regardless of the owner’s innocence, Wayne County impounds the vehicles and its contents until the owner pays a redemption fee. This fee is $900 for the first seizure, $1,800 for the second, and $2,700 for the third, not including other fees for towing and storage.

If the owner is unwilling or unable to pay the redemption fee, the only alternatives are either to abandon the vehicle or to wait for county prosecutors to decide whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top