Major Win Against Abuse of Police Power During Seizures

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has delivered a significant victory in a challenge to abuse of police power, ruling that the Fourth Amendment forbids police officers from retaining the property they seize—such as cell phones, cameras, or vehicles—for an unreasonable period of time. This important decision stems from the cases of Asinor v. District of Columbia and Cameron v. District of Columbia, where plaintiffs argued that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) wrongly held the personal possessions—including cell phones—of people they had arrested for months or even years after their arrests, without any legitimate reason, causing significant personal and professional harm. The plaintiffs argue that MPD has a practice of keeping seized cell phones long after any justification for retaining it ended.

The ruling will be critical for challenging such abuses, not just in D.C., but across the nation, where similar practices are common. The court’s decision is a significant precedent, as courts in many other jurisdictions had been hostile to Fourth Amendment claims about the continued retention of property.

“This ruling is a powerful reminder that the government cannot hold onto people’s personal property indefinitely without a valid reason.  The Fourth Amendment was written to protect against this kind of overreach, and today’s decision reinforces that safeguard,” said Michael Perloff, Interim Legal Director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia. “These cases show the importance of this principle, as they involve officers retaining property seized from people arrested (though not charged) after racial justice protests. The officers’ conduct not only constituted an abuse of power but also threatened to chill free expression.”

The impact on those whose property is seized and retained is significant, both financially and personally. In the Asinor and Cameron cases, many plaintiffs had to replace their cell phones and lost vital work data, cherished personal photos, and other irreplaceable content. In an amicus brief filed in the case, the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia detailed how, after arresting people, MPD seizes and retains their cash or medication. On one instance, MPD refused to return an individual’s winter coat, leading the person to exit the D.C. Superior Court in fifteen-degree weather wearing only a t-shirt.

Since 2017, MPD has routinely retained cell phones seized from people it arrests long after any legitimate law enforcement need has passed. Many of these prolonged retentions arose from arrests occurring during racial justice protests, including the ones that took place in D.C. after the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Retaining property in these circumstances can have a chilling effect, causing people to fear that participating in protests will lead to the indefinite loss of their belongings.

The consequences of MPD’s practice of unreasonably retaining cell phones was glaringly evident in the Asinor case, where Oyoma Asinor, a photojournalist, was covering a protest near Black Lives Matter Plaza in 2020 when police arrested him and then took his phone and camera. He was released without charges soon after the arrest, but MPD held his equipment for over eleven months without justification.

“This opinion not only affirms the importance of the Fourth Amendment’s crucial protections, but also will also protect thousands of D.C. residents who are arrested without ever being charged and need their phones, cars, and other property returned to them so they can go to work, connect with their families, and go about their lives,” said Ryan Downer, Legal Director, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

“I am pleased that the D.C. Circuit agreed with us on this important issue,” added Julia York, pro bono counsel to the Cameron plaintiffs, “we will continue to fight for our clients as we return to the district court.”

Judge Gregory Katsas, in his opinion, underscored the importance of this ruling, stating: “When the government seizes property incident to a lawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued possession of the property must be reasonable.” The ruling reverses the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claims, vacates the dismissal of the D.C. law claims and the denial of the Cameron plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and sends the case back to the District Court.

The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the Law Office of Jeffrey L. Light, and pro bono counsel Tara Reinhart, Julia York, and Joe Sandman represent the plaintiffs in Cameron v. District of Columbia. The ACLU of the District of Columbia represents the plaintiffs in Asinor v. District of Columbia.

For more information on these cases, please visit:

– Asinor v. District of Columbia: Click here.

– Cameron v. District of Columbia: Click here