On Aug. 11, 2014, four individuals filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sued the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, and the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Nov. 17, 2014.

The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the Institute for Justice, alleged the defendants’ policies and practices with regard to civil forfeitures: (1) violated the plaintiffs’ rights to notice or a hearing prior to the seizure, (2) compelled the plaintiffs to give up constitutional and statutory rights, (3) prevented the plaintiffs from receiving a timely hearing, (4) required the plaintiffs to return to court multiple times by re-listing the property in question, (5) inserted an institutional and personal interest in forfeiture proceedings by allowing the defendants to retain the property’s proceeds, and (6) violated due process by allowing the defendants to run the forfeiture courtroom proceedings. The plaintiffs sought an injunction and declaratory judgment on these six claims.

Under Pennsylvania law, law enforcement can confiscate real and personal property if it is associated with a crime, even if the owner of the property is not associated with the crime. Commonly, property was seized in connection with a controlled substance violation pursuant to the Controlled Substance Forfeiture Act. Once seized, the property owner must prove the innocence of the property to get it back. Otherwise, the District Attorney’s Office (DA) keeps the property or proceeds from its sale. The plaintiffs alleged that by using forms copied from civil forfeiture petitions and courtroom proceedings run by DA prosecutors, the DA generates a substantially high volume of cases that account for almost 20% of its general budget. Moreover, after the initial hearing, prosecutors sometimes decided to re-list the case multiple times before it concluded, compelling the plaintiffs to return to court each time if they wished to contest the forfeiture. After seizing the property, the defendants required the plaintiffs to agree to particular conditions before regaining their property, including waiving the right to an innocent-owner defense should the defendants seize the property in the future or waiving the defense that the forfeiture is disproportionate to the offense.

The plaintiffs sought class certification, and the defendants sought to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Following Senior Judge Eduardo Robreno’s May 12, 2015, denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the parties entered into settlement discussions. On Nov. 4, 2015, after a fairness hearing, the Judge Robreno ordered approval of a settlement and class certification only with regard to the first two claims.

Per the order, the class for the first claim of relief was “all persons holding legal title to or otherwise having a legal interest in real property against which an ex parte “seize and seal” order is presently in effect, or will in the future be in effect.” The class for the second claim of relief was “all persons holding legal title to or otherwise having a legal interest in real or personal property against which a civil-forfeiture petition has been filed, or will in the future be filed, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and who entered into an unsealing agreement or a settlement agreement.”

Per the settlement agreement, the defendants were prohibited from seeking ex parte “seize and seal” orders under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act unless the application was previously approved, there are facts to establish the existence of exigent circumstances connected to the property, and there are facts to establish that less restrictive measures would not be sufficient. Additionally, any existing ex parte “seize and seal” orders were to be removed. The settlement also provided that notice would be given to civil forfeiture respondents that entered into unsealing or settlement agreements that specific conditions of their agreements are now void.

Litigation continued regarding the outstanding claims for relief. On Sept. 7, 2016, the court denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration.

On Aug. 1, 2016, the plaintiffs had filed a motion to join defendant state court administrators, file a second amended complaint, and sever plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief. In an order dated Sept. 14, 2016 and filed on Sept. 15, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint the same day, requesting relief on the remaining claims.

For the next several months, procedural developments continued, including the defendants filing two motions to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2016, and again on Nov. 29, 2016.

Then, on Feb. 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' request for class certification as to their fifth claim. The court granted certification "with respect to Plaintiffs’ requests for (1) a declaration that the City and D.A. Defendants’ policy and practice of retaining forfeited property and its proceeds is unconstitutional, and (2) an injunction enjoining that policy and practice." It denied certification with respect to" entry of judgment requiring the return of property." A month later on March 30, 2017, in a written memorandum, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.

The defendants filed a motion for a permanent injunction on July 21, 2017. They argued that, despite offering the plaintiffs "a settlement agreement whereby the Philadelphia Police Department and District Attorney’s Office would no longer receive any forfeiture proceeds" two months prior, the plaintiffs had not accepted the offer. In an effort to end the litigation, the defendants asked the court to issue an injunction against themselves.

On Aug. 4, 2017, the plaintiffs responded to the defendants' motion, alleging that the defendants were attempting to "moot" the plaintiffs' claims in order to avoid a ruling on the merits of the constitutionality of their policy of using forfeiture proceeds. The plaintiffs asked the court to defer ruling on the defendants' motion and hold it in abeyance until after the parties completed discovery and summary judgment briefing had been completed.

On Aug. 18, 2017, the court ordered the parties to submit a list of proposed facilitators to mediate settlement of the courtroom claims by Sept. 7, 2017.

On Nov. 27, 2017, the court ordered that the case be suspended pending the parties' settlement negotiations and the appointment of a mediator.

As of Mar. 20, 2018, the case is still ongoing.

Virginia Weeks - 11/20/2016
Virginia Weeks - 09/12/2017
Elizabeth Greiter - 03/20/2018


compress summary