Who has the responsibility to ensure that property in the custody of a law enforcement agency is returned to its rightful owner? Traditionally, the agency had only the responsibility of notifying the owner that the property was in the possession of the agency, and setting a deadline for the owner to pick up the property to avoid forfeiting ownership to the agency. From that point forward, it has been the responsibility of the owner to pick up the property.

According to a story by staff writer David G. Savage in the Los Angeles Times on May 5, 1998, the Supreme Court has agreed to settle the issue by hearing the appeal of a ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court ruled that the city of West Covina violated the constitutional rights of a West Covina (CA) couple when it failed to clearly tell them how they could recover $2,469 in cash taken from their home in a faulty police raid.

The case began in May, 1993, when the couple returned home to find their doors damaged, their belongings in disarray and their cash savings missing from a locked closet. They also found a notice, which included the name and phone number of a detective, saying that their house had been searched by the police under a warrant issued by a municipal judge.

The police had been searching for a reputed gang member and murder suspect who had been renting a room from the couple, but who no longer lived there at the time of the raid.

The complaint alleges the detective refused to cooperate in returning the property when the couple could not help him find the suspect. He told the couple that only the court could return the property. The court required a search warrant number, but the police said the file was sealed and the warrant was unavailable.

The Supreme Court now will decide whether police officers who seize an innocent homeowner's cash and valuables must tell him how to get his property back. What do you think? What the Justices think will decide how we have to do our job.