-Caveat Lector- http://www.austin360.com/shared-cgi/aponline/show_story.cgi?id=aponline-menu s-data/Washington.AP.V0264.AP-Court-Search.story&menu=Washington.html Court Kills Suit on Seized Property By LAURIE ASSEO Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP)--Police don't have to tell people how to get back their property when it is seized under a search warrant, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. People can find that out on their own from public sources, the court said. The justices unanimously threw out a California couple's lawsuit over the difficulty they had recovering cash taken by police during a search of their home. Writing for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that when police seize property under a search warrant, due process requires them to give notice that the property was taken. Otherwise, the property's owner might not know who took it, he said. But Kennedy added, ``Once the property owner is informed that his property has been seized, he can turn to ... public sources to learn about the remedial procedures'' for recovering the property later. ``The city need not take other steps to inform him of his options,'' Kennedy said. In other matters: _Most of the justices appeared skeptical as a lawyer for California urged them during an oral argument to let the state pay lower welfare benefits to newcomers than are provided to longtime state residents. _The court made it easier to sue hospitals for ``dumping'' patients who need emergency care onto other facilities. The court unanimously revived a Kentucky woman's lawsuit and said such claims do not have to show a hospital had an improper motive in transferring a patient. In the police search case, Lawrence and Clara Perkins' home was searched by police in West Covina, Calif., in May 1993. The couple had rented a room to a man linked to a shooting death elsewhere in the town. Among the items seized from the house was $2,469 in cash belonging to the Perkinses. No one was at home when the house was searched, but police left a note saying they conducted the search under a court warrant. The note included a list of the items seized and contained a phone number to obtain further information. Lawrence Perkins called the number and was told he needed a court order to get the money returned. Later, he was told there was nothing at the municipal courthouse under his name and that he needed a case number or search warrant number. No city employee told him how to find those numbers. The Perkinses sued the city in 1993, saying the search violated their constitutional rights. The city returned the cash in mid-1994. A federal judge ruled for the city, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the city violated Perkins' constitutional rights by giving inadequate notice on how to recover the cash. The Supreme Court said the appeals court was wrong. To uphold the 9th Circuit court's ruling, ``we would be required to find that due process requires notice that not one state or the federal government has seen fit to require,'' Kennedy wrote. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself and Justice Antonin Scalia, agreed with the result. Patrick Smith, the Los Angeles lawyer who represented the Perkinses, called the decision disappointing. He said he now hopes all cities, including West Covina, ``will start giving such notice, not because it's constitutionally required but because it's the right thing to do.'' AP-NY-01-13-99 1732EST Copyright 1999, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All rights reserved. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
