Four D.C. Employees Remain on Hook for Damages Arising From Unlawful Seizure of Documents From Capitol Hill Homeowners
Washington, (D.C.) — A federal district judge for the District of Columbia has denied the District of Columbia’s third attempt to dismiss compensatory and punitive damages claims pending against four of its employees who were involved in the unlawful seizure of personal documents from the Capitol Hill home of wife and husband Laura Elkins and John Robbins. Elkins v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 04-480. In today’s ruling, District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer stressed that the four District employees remain subject to possible personal liability, including potential punitive damages, for claims arising from what the federal judge referred to as potentially “reckless” behavior.
“We are pleased that the court has again rejected the attempts of these District employees to escape their responsibility to obey the constitutional prohibition against unlawful seizure of documents from private homes,” explained Nancie G. Marzulla, counsel for Ms. Elkins and Mr. Robbins. “We look forward to going to trial and at long last recovering appropriate damages for these constitutional violations.”
The case arises from a dispute over renovation of the couple’s home on Capitol Hill. The District’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, which had initially approved the renovation, later sought to revoke the building permits after a neighbor complained of a possible building code violation. In the course of investigating the alleged violation, the District conducted a search of the home, and seized documents without a warrant. Ms. Elkins and Mr. Robbins, who later proved that they had never been in violation of any building codes, challenged the document seizure under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The same district court has already held that the District officials’ actions violate the Constitution.
In today’s ruling, the Court further noted that: “A question of fact exists regarding whether any Individual Defendant acted with reckless disregard to the fact that the search warrant did not authorize the seizure of Plaintiffs’ documents. . . . These circumstances raise the question of whether the seizure was done recklessly.”
Click here to read the entire opinion.
Related Information:
Printable View
