Langston v. Charter Twp. of Redford, 14-1664
| Decision Date | 06 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-1664,14-1664 |
| Parties | BLAIR LANGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees, BILL SCHUETTE, Intervenor Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0555n.06
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Blair Langston (Langston) appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Charter Township of Redford (Redford) and eleven Redford Police officers1 in this action arising from the seizure and subsequent administrative forfeiture of money and a Breitling watch under the Michigan Controlled Substances Act (Act or CSA), M.C.L. § 333.7521, et seq. Bringing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Langston requests declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the Act is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied because it violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, his First Amendment right to petition, and his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. We REVERSE the grant of summary judgment on Langston's as-applied procedural due process claim and his Monell2 claim, and AFFIRM the decision of the district court on all other claims.
Beginning in March of 2007, Langston obtained the personal information of various American Express credit-card holders. He then called American Express posing as the cardholders, reported that the cards were compromised, and requested that new ones be sent to an address where he could access the mail. When the credit cards arrived, Langston took them and used them to purchase goods and services and to obtain cash. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered the wire-fraud scheme sometime in 2008. Langston admits that he intentionally evaded law enforcement until his arrest on August 2, 2009.
The Redford Police Department began investigating Langston on July 24, 2009, after receiving a report that he was involved in domestic violence. Redford Police discovered that there were a number of existing warrants for Langston's arrest, including a warrant issued by the FBI for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Officer Eric Norman of the Redford Police contacted the United States Marshals (Marshals) to obtain assistance in conducting surveillance and arresting Langston.
On August 2, 2009, Marshals went to arrest Langston at his apartment, but Langston's friend saw the Marshals arrive and called Langston to warn him, leading Langston to gather his cash in a plastic bag and flee in a black 2009 Jaguar XS.3 Langston was aware of the warrant for wire fraud and assumed that was why the Marshals were there. A high-speed chase ensued, and Langston was arrested after he crashed and totaled his car. Langston was taken to the Redford Police Department where officers seized a silver Breitling watch, four or five cell phones, two diamond earrings, a wallet, a plastic bag containing $5,142 in cash, and Langston's identification, all of which were on his person or in the car at the time of his arrest. Langston received a receipt for these items. His car was also impounded.4
While in custody, Langston explained that he had large amounts of cash because he was preparing to pay his monthly rent and car note, and because he planned to enroll his daughter in Cranbrook School's preschool program.5 When asked where the money came from, Langston conceded that he could not "really distinguish funds that were from illegal activities versus funds that are from legitimate activities." However, Langston's last regular employment was in 2003, and his "legitimate activities" consisted of investing in concerts, events, and club promotions with the money he obtained from his wire fraud. Langston claimed that he bought the watch using his credit card in January of 2009 at the Somerset Collection in Troy, Michigan.
On August 5, 2009, after Officer Jeziorowski's narcotics dog sniffed Langston's currency and indicated that it was positive for narcotics, Officer Jones served Langston with a notice of forfeiture. The notice stated that the currency and watch were seized pursuant to the CSA and further explained the claim and bond procedure:
Since the total value of the seized property does not exceed $50,000, it is the intent of the seizing agency to forfeit and dispose of the above described property according to the provision of MCL 333.7521, et seq. If you or any person claiming an interest in the above described property wish to challenge the seizure and forfeiture of the property or wish to claim an interest in the property, you must file a written claim with the seizing agency at the above address within 20 days of this notice (or the date of the first publication of this notice in the newspaper), AND you must give a bond6 to the seizing unit of government in the amount of 10% of the value of the claimed property, but not less than $250.00 or greater than $5,000. Failure to file a claim of interest and bond within 20 days shall cause the listed property to be declared forfeited and disposed of according to law.
Langston also consented to a search of his home on the same day he was served with the notice. Officers found and seized a laptop, printer, and documents, including credit-card receipts and other papers related to the wire fraud, but no evidence of drug activity.
Langston testified at his deposition that after the search of his home revealed no drugs or drug paraphernalia, thus providing no support for a forfeiture under the CSA, he asked Officer Jones for his watch and cash back and Officer Jones responded that he would return the watch if Langston did not contest the forfeiture of the currency. Langston refused, demanding the return of all his seized property. Officer Jones responded that if Langston had additional money in a safe deposit box and told him where it was, Officer Jones would bring it back to the station and give half to Langston. Langston denied having any additional cash and asked again for his property; Officer Jones responded that he would have to speak to his supervisor because the Redford Police usually did not return money after it was seized.
The State charged Langston with offenses related to the domestic violence incidents and he was arraigned in the 17th District Court in Redford Township.7 Because he would be in jail during the 20-day claim period, Langston asked his mother, Sheritta Langston (Ms. Langston), to make a claim for the cash and watch and post the required bond. Ms. Langston testified that when she arrived at the police station,8 she went to the station's lobby window with Langston's name9 and explained that she was there to retrieve her son's property. The officer, whose name she did not recall, directed her to the Detective Bureau on the second floor. A male detective wearing a suit, whose name she also could not recall, spoke with her in the lobby. After looking up Langston's case on the computer, the detective told her that Langston's property was not at the police station and that she should contact the Marshals. Ms. Langston testified that she called the Marshals shortly after, but they too claimed not to have Langston's property. She told Langston that she was not able to collect his property, and he told her that he would ask someone else to try. The Redford Police assert they have no recollection or documentation of Ms. Langston's inquiry. On August 25, 2009, at the end of the 20-day claim period, Redford Police considered Langston's items administratively forfeited.
In his deposition, Lieutenant Gillman, who was in charge of logging and tracking forfeited items at the time Langston's property was seized, testified that notwithstanding that the notice of forfeiture clearly instructed interested parties to report to the Redford Police Department to file a claim of interest, the Redford Police did not accept bonds at the station's lobby window. Instead, at the direction of the Wayne County Prosecutor, all bonds were to be posted at the prosecutor's office. But, according to Lieutenant Gillman, the officer at the front desk "might not have any idea what [the claimant was] talking about" if the claimant attempted to post bond.
Langston filed a four-count complaint on August 15, 2012, and a corrected amended complaint on September 27, 2012, alleging that the individual officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and administratively forfeiting his money and watch without probable cause to believe that the property was related to drug activity (Count I); that the officers violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights in the way they carried out the administrative forfeiture (Count II); and that Redford Township had a forfeiture policy that violated Langston's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights (Count IV). Langston also requested a declaration that Michigan's administrative forfeiture law is invalid, facially and as-applied, because it does not provide any judicial review or relief. Redford and the Officers filed a motion for summary judgment; the State, as an intervenor, filed a motion for partial summary judgment; and Langston filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
After a hearing, the district court granted Redford's and the officers' motion for summary judgment, granted the State's partial motion for summary judgment, and denied Langston's cross motion for summary judgment, finding that 1) M.C.L. § 333.7523 is facially valid because it provides notice and opportunity to be heard; 2) Langston's as-applied procedural due process claims failed because he did not prove the inadequacy of the available state-court remedies; and 3) Langston's Fourth Amendment claim failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial