You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Stork v. McKinley

Citation: 444 F. App'x 920Docket: No. 11-1315

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; October 21, 2011; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Frank Stork filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against South Bend police officer Nicholas McKinley and state prosecutor Michael Dvorak, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to the seizure of $2,907 from his wallet during his arrest. The district court dismissed Stork's complaint, determining it failed to state a claim. Stork alleged that McKinley seized the money as punishment for lying to him and that Dvorak failed to return it, depriving him of due process necessary for posting bail.

The district court justified the dismissal by stating that McKinley lawfully seized the money during an inventory search, which does not require probable cause or a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. It also noted that Dvorak, as a prosecutor, was entitled to absolute immunity. On appeal, Stork abandoned his claim against Dvorak but contested the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim.

The appellate court acknowledged that while inventory searches must follow standardized procedures, Stork conceded that it is standard to seize a prisoner's money during intake. Stork later argued that McKinley failed to deposit the money into his prison account or provide a receipt, which would indicate a post-seizure deprivation of property rather than an unlawful seizure. However, the court indicated that a random and unauthorized deprivation does not violate due process if adequate post-deprivation remedies exist, which are provided under Indiana's Tort Claims Act. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that Stork could not establish a constitutional claim against McKinley.