Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Petitioner - 5th Amendment/Takings Clause & 14th/Due Process - Coggle…

- - - - City argues that because the original seizure was done pursuant to the city's police powers, not its power of eminent domain, there are no limits on its authority to dispose of property. [relies on Bennis]
        
        [Bennis] counter: differences - 1) Mich Court transferred 100% ownership of car to the state permanently and for a punitive reason. in our case, City did not seize P's property with intent to keep it permanently.
        Motive was related to safety at the Jail, not punishment of owner, and 30 day limit reflected practical constraints on storage capacity. Only if detainee did not reclaim property did the property become abandoned. so this case is a poor fit for the City's system of controlling property in the hands of detainees
        
        Punitive [Bennis] v. Practical [Conyers]
        
        "A government may not be required to compensate an owner for property which it lawfully acquired under the exercise of government authority other than the power of eminent domain."
        
        Public Use Argument: Constraints on storage space for seized property
- - - - Notice directed arrestees to visit the CPD website, which provided additional information about non-monetary property and 3rd party authorized representatives. (Only place displaying this information.)