CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-FIFTH AMENDMENT-TAKINGS CLAUSE-POLICE SEIZURE OF LAWFULLY OWNED GUNS

Frein v. Pa. State Police, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24414 (3^rd Cir. August 30, 2022) (Bibas, C.J.) Police may seize potential evidence using a warrant.  They may not keep it forever.  They did that in this case.  After a man assassinated a Pennsylvania state trooper and injured another, the trooper seized his parents’ guns.  The government never used the guns as evidence.  Eight years after the crime, once the son lost his last direct appeal, the officer still refused to return them, even though the officers do not claim that the parents or guns were involved in the crime.  Because the parents were never compensated, they have a Takings claim.  Because they lawfully owned the guns, they have a Second Amendment claim too.  Since they had a real chance to challenge the government’s keeping the guns, they did get procedural due process.  The court found that the case of Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 452 (1996) is no bar to the claim.  At most, the guns are potential evidence and the police do not gain title to that.  The warrant does not immunize officials who keep property this long.  Valid warrants immunize officers who stay within their scope but they are not blank checks.  The property must be returned unless it is concluded that it was contraband or subject to forfeiture.  United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3^rd Cir. 1999).  The government needs justification to keep the guns this long.  The guns do not fall into any of the categories that permits the government to hold onto them for this many years.  The government has also infringed upon the parents’ rights to keep arms.  The Second Amendment protect a person’s right to keep his own guns for self-defense.  History confirms the parents’ Second Amendment right to get their guns back.  Americans properly feared government seizure.  Congress has passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to protect all citizens’ constitutional rights, including the right to arms.  The Fourth Amendment was designed to secure that right as well.  The narrow historical exceptions did not justify holding onto the guns.  The Takings Clause does apply.  Seizing and holding onto the guns can violate the clause.  Pennsylvania gave the parents due process. The district court was affirmed on this point.  The parents may not seek damages against the state police.  The procedural due process claim therefore is dismissed.