Posted by David Kopel:
Second Circuit rules in favor of firearms dealers on procedural due process:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_16-2009_08_22.shtml#1250527213
[1]Spinelli v. City of New York was decided on August 7, by Judges
Calabresi and Walker. Judge Sotomayor had been on the panel, but did
not participate in the decision, due to her elevation to the Supreme
Court.
Angela Spinelli had been doing business a licensed firearms dealer in
the Bronx for decades. Pursuant to New York City law, the police
conducted an unannounced inspection of her premises in October 2001.
They found security violations, seized all her firearms, and suspended
her license for selling firearms. Spinelli fixed the security
violations, and 58 days after the suspension, her license and firearms
were restored.
In the lawsuit arising from the NYCPD conduct, the Second Circuit
ruled:
1. There was no Fourth Amendment violation to the unannounced
search, because it was conducted pursuant to the NYC Code, and
because firearms dealers, as a pervasively regulated business, have
little expectation of freedom from warrantless inspection.
2. Spinelli was not entitled to due process prior to the license
suspension and the seizure of her inventory, because of the
necessity for rapid action to protect public safety.
3. Spinelli was entitled to post-seizure due process, including
notice (of what the specific security violations were) and a
hearing. New York City refused to provide this, and accordingly,
summary judgement should be entered against the City on this issue,
and the district court should make a determination regarding
damages. The fact that Spinelli was able to hire a lawyer to
negotiate with the City does not cure the City's due process
violation.
4. Spinelli had a property interest in her firearms business
license. In contrast to a NY State handgun carry license (for which
there is nearly unlimited discretion for revocation), a firearms
dealer license is a property right, because the grounds for
revocation are limited.
5. Because Spinelli has a valid federal claim (post-seizure due
process), the federal district court also has jurisdiction over
Spinelli's state law claim of tortious interference with business
relations. The case in district court should proceed forward on
this issue.
Items 3-5 reversed the decision of district court Judge Richard Casey.
I have not read the briefs in this case, so it is possible that there
are problems in the decision which are not obvious merely from reading
the appellate opinion. However, within the four corners of the
opinion, the decision seems generally correct based on existing
precedent. Not that I necessarily agree with all the precedent, but
the Second Circuit's application of that precedent appears reasonable.
References
1.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/621205aa-8098-4fe6-8c7a-9b298d7a3b0e/1/doc/07-1237-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/621205aa-8098-4fe6-8c7a-9b298d7a3b0e/1/hilite/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
