Parrott v. Dist. of Columbia

OLIVIA PARROTT, et al, Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-2930-RCL

United States District Court, District of Columbia

February 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge.

In this case, plaintiffs Olivia Parrott, Bardino Joyner, Dreyvon Iracks, and a putative class of similarly situated individuals allege that the defendant District of Columbia ("the District") violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and committed a common-law tort known as "unlawful detention of property" by seizing their vehicles and smartphones for use as evidence in criminal cases in which they were not themselves defendants and retaining that property long after it had been "processed" as evidence.

Before the Court is the District's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, ECF No. 22. In it, the District contends that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment's takings clause say anything about the ongoing retention of lawfully seized property for use in a criminal investigation that the District's property-recovery procedures adequately protect plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process rights, and that the tort plaintiffs allege does not exist. The Court agrees with the District that plaintiffs fail to state a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim Fifth Amendment takings claim, or tort claim. However, the Court concludes that plaintiffs state a plausible Fifth Amendment due process claim. Accordingly, the District's motion to dismiss will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The following background is drawn from publicly available rules and regulations setting out District policies and from the factual allegations in the amended complaint, ECF No. 18. As it must when evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes the veracity of all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint. See Alemu v. Dep 't of For-Hire Vehicles, 327 F.Supp.3d 29, 40 (D.D.C. 2018).

A. The District's Policies and Procedures for Property Seized as Evidence

Pursuant to Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") General Order 601.1, "Recording, Handling and Disposition of Property Coming into the Custody of the Department" (Apr. 30, 1992), MPD designates property that comes into its possession under one or more of several classifications, including, as relevant here, "evidence," or "held for civil forfeiture." Id. Part I.A.6. The procedures that the order sets out contemplate that property designated as "evidence" will eventually be returned to its owner. If a case has been charged and "a disposition is available in the case, or the property is no longer needed for prosecution," MPD "shall submit a completed PD Form 81-C [Property Release] containing the signature of the appropriate prosecuting attorney" from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Id. Part I.I.8.b. Alternatively, "[a]fter 60 days, if there is no defendant or suspect in a case, and it is evident that the property will not be needed in court, the [MPD] member who initially handled the property shall prepare and submit a properly signed PD Form 81-C to their element property officer," id. Part I.I.I l,^[1] who is "responsible for the security of property held at their element[] and for the proper transfer of the property to the Property Control Branch," id. Part IV.A.l. However, General Order 601.1 does not explain in detail how property designated as evidence is to be released to its owner once a properly signed PD Form 81-C has been executed.^[2]

Moreover, the amended complaint alleges that "MPD in practice has no reliable system for making sure that some member promptly obtains a PD 81-C from a prosecutor for vehicles or smartphones or other property when it is no longer needed for evidentiary reasons." Am. Compl. ¶ 51. In practice, even when a case has been charged, it is the MPD officer who "makes the decision to release the property and then presents a Form 81C to a supervisor at the U.S. AO to sign indicating that the USAO-DC has no objection to that release and said property is not needed to be retained as evidence." Id. ¶ 49 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, the evidence control section of MPD's website tells property owners that "property classified as 'evidence'" "is generally held until the conclusion of any pending court action." Id. ¶ 63.

B. The Named Plaintiffs' Factual Allegations

1. Olivia Parrott

Plaintiff Olivia Parrott is a single mother of two residing in the Parkland neighborhood of Southeast Washington. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 197, 203. On the afternoon of August 22,2019, Ms. Parrott parked her Volkswagen Passat in front of her house. Id. ¶ 210. Around 11:00 p.m. that evening, she heard gunshots outside her home and went outside to see "the whole neighborhood" in a commotion around what appeared to be the scene of a shooting. Id. ¶¶ 208-09. Ms. Parrott's boyfriend, Melvin Simmons, lay seriously wounded in the Passat, with a gunshot wound to his back and bullet holes in the back of the car, and Robert Jerome Brown, Jr. lay dead in the street in a puddle of blood. Id. ¶¶ 204-05, 212. Ms. Parrott was unable to open the car because she did not have the keys. Id. ¶ 211. MPD officers arrived on the scene to investigate, and they found the bullet holes in the back of the car, as well as blood spatter evidence. Id. ¶ 212. They also searched the area in front of Ms. Parrott's home, where they found guns, blood spatter, and a set of keys with a Volkswagen key. Id. ¶ 214.

The next morning, Ms. Parrott exited her home around 7:00 a.m., and the Passat was not there. Id. ¶ 216. She was able to find where it was located only by using an app on her personal iPhone to track one of three family iPhones she had left in the car, which led her to a location marked as "D.C. Forensics," or "DFS." Id. ¶¶ 201, 217-18. When she arrived at DFS, she identified herself as the owner of the Passat, and MPD officers questioned her for two to three hours about the car, her relationship with Mr. Simmons, and the shootings that had apparently taken place outside her house. Id. ¶ 220. MPD told Ms. Parrott that it would return the Passat and one of the iPhones she left inside it if she consented to a search of the car and gave MPD the password to the iPhone so it could be searched as well. Id. ¶¶ 221-22. Ms. Parrott agreed, but MPD nevertheless refused to turn over either the phone or the car at that time. Id. ¶¶ 221, 223, 236.

MPD finished processing the car and the iPhone, "including taking swabs of the suspected blood," and searching the car and the iPhone, "in just a few days." Id. ¶ 241. Nevertheless, despite repeated calls and texts from Ms. Parrott inquiring about the return of her property, id. ¶ 247, MPD continued to hold onto it. Approximately three months after the seizure, on November 19, 2019, the U.S. Attorney instituted a criminal case in D.C. Superior Court against Mr. Simmons. Id. ¶ 246. At some point unspecified in the amended complaint, prosecutors subpoenaed Ms. Parrott to testify before the grand jury in that matter. Id. ¶ 249. She complied, the Superior Court appointed her a lawyer, and she testified before the grand jury on June 23, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 248-50. On July 26, 2021, the lead MPD detective and Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the case both promised Ms. Parrott's court-appointed lawyer that they would get back to him within a week about returning the car and iPhone. Id. ¶ 248.

The amended complaint does not specify what happened next in those conversations, but MPD finally returned the car to Ms. Parrott over a month later, on September 8, 2021, more than two years after it was originally seized. Id. ¶ 251. Unfortunately for Ms. Parrott, she did not have the keys to the car, as they had been dropped at the scene of the shooting, and they were still in MPD's possession as evidence to be used in the criminal case. Id. ¶ 253. When she arrived at the impound lot, MPD did not return the keys along with the car. Id. ¶ 254. MPD also refused to return two of the iPhones left in the car, which it believed Mr. Simmons had used, or any other personal property in the car, including Ms. Parrott's birth certificate. Id. ¶¶ 255, 258. MPD told Ms. Parrott she could either leave the car in its custody or allow the impound lot to move the car to the curb, where it would be towed within 24 hours. Id. ¶ 256. Ms. Parrott chose the latter and paid a towing service to move the car to her home. Id. ¶ 200.

2. Bardino Joyner

Plaintiff Bardino Joyner was living in South Carolina when the events of his case began in 2020. Am. Compl. ¶ 263. Sometime before May of that year, Mr. Joyner lent his truck, a Toyota Tundra, to his brother, who in turn lent it to someone else without Mr. Joyner's knowledge. Id. ¶ 264. In early May 2020, the truck was parked on a street in Southeast Washington by an unknown driver, after which MPD towed it "without a warrant and without providing any notice or information about the seizure to Mr. Joyner or anyone else connected with the vehicle." Id. ¶ 266.

"As it turned out," MPD had seized Mr. Joyner's Tundra and classified it both as evidence of a crime and for potential forfeiture. Id. ¶ 267. The Amended Complaint does not specify how Mr. Joyner or his attorney became aware of the seizure, but on May 5, 2020, his attorney contacted MPD to inquire about getting the truck returned. Id. ¶ 270. Over the coming months, Mr. Joyner's attorney was in frequent contact with MPD and the District's Office of the Attorney General regarding the truck. Id. ¶¶ 270-272. Mr. Joyner's attorney learned that MPD searched the Tundra after a drug-sniffing dog alerted them that there may be contraband inside and found small quantities of what appeared to be marijuana and heroin. Id. ¶¶...