Notably, the main authorities from this court relied on by the Claims Court for its police-power analysis involved government dispossessions of personal property that rested on specific government authority that long predated the possession of the personal property at issue. See , e.g. , Kam-Almaz v. United States , 682 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (evidentiary seizure at airport upon entry from overseas, exercising the "government's power to police the border"); AmeriSource Corp. v. United States , 525 F.3d 1149, 1150, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (seizure of drugs for use in criminal prosecutions); Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States , 458 F.3d 1327, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (seizure and forfeiture of goods entering country with counterfeit trademarks). Reviewing the Claims Court's rationales would call for extensive analysis to decide how far beyond such circumstances a "police power" rationale properly applies and whether it properly reaches this case.
We need not address the other deficiencies in Kam–Almaz's pleadings identified by the Court of Federal Claims in order to conclude that the court correctly dismissed Kam–Almaz's claim for breach of an implied-in-fact bailment contract. Finally, Kam–Almaz contends that the Court of Federal Claims “treated the issue of the bailment as if such a claim were legally not viable,” and in so doing disregarded the Supreme Court's opinions of Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 104 S.Ct. 1519, 79 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984) and Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460, 100 S.Ct. 647, 62 L.Ed.2d 614 (1980) (per curiam), as well as our court's decision in Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir.2006). Br. Pl.–Appellant Kam–Almaz at 14.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States 458 F.3d 1327 Adeleke v. United States 355 F.3d 144 Armstrong v. United States 364 U.S. 40 Bennis v. Michigan 516 U.S. 442 passimBrown v. Legal Foundation of Washington 538 U.S. 216 Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l 508 U.S. 83 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v.County of Los Angeles 482 U.S. 304 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 547 U.S. 388 Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 467 U.S. 229 Hodel v. Irving 481 U.S. 704 Interstate Cigar Co. v. United StatesJ.W. Goldsmith, Jr. Grant Co. v. United States 254 U.S. 505 Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 U.S. 419 Lowther v. United States 480 F.2d 1031 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003 Pena v. United States 157 F.3d 984 Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City 438 U.S. 104 Pennell v. City of San Jose 485 U.S. 1 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 260 U.S. 393 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 535 U.S. 302 United States v. Bein 214 F.3d 408 U
Property seized and retained pursuant to the police power is not taken for a "public use" in the context of the Takings Clause. In Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006), United States Customs seized three shipments of cooling fans for computer processors bearing fabricated trademark stickers in violation of section 42 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1124. The government seized the fans pursuant to section 526(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1526(e), which "provides that any merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark . . . that is imported into the United States in violation of [the Lanham Act] `shall be seized and, in the absence of the written consent of the trademark owner, forfeited for violations of the customs laws.'"
For the purposes of a takings claim, this Court must assume that the underlying agency action was lawful. Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 270 F.3d 1347, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (on petition for rehearing). Discussion
U.S. Const. amend, V. Acadia Tech., Inc. v. U.S., 458 F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 452-53 (1996)). 7.
See United States v. One (1) 1979 Cadillac Coupe De Ville VIN 6D4799266999, 833 F.2d 994, 1000-01 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding that there is no takings liability for the reduction in the value of property while it is held by the government pursuant to a validly instituted but ultimately unsuccessful forfeiture action); AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1150-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding no takings liability when drugs seized pursuant to a criminal proceeding were worthless after being returned because they were past their expiration date); Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding no takings liability when fans seized for potential civil forfeiture were returned after they had become obsolete and their only value was for scrap); Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding no takings liability when a laptop seized pursuant to a law enforcement investigation was returned after its hard drive had failed while in government custody, which deleted most of the business software on the laptop). While the United States' police power may insulate it from liability for an initial seizure, there is no police power exception that insulates the United States from takings liability for the period after seized property is no longer needed for criminal proceedings.
Regarding the takings claim, the court cited our prior case holding that a seizure of personal property during a criminal investigation is not a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 6 (citing Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). And regarding the breach of contract claim, the court found that Mr. Myles had not identified a valid contract between himself and the United States.
Again, this resembles domestic law on takings. See Davis , 648 F.3d at 97 ; see also AmeriSource Corp. v. United States , 525 F.3d 1149, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ; Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States , 458 F.3d 1327, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ; United States v. $7,990.00 in U.S. Currency , 170 F.3d 843, 845–46 (8th Cir. 1999). First, a law enforcement seizure may constitute an illegal taking if the seizure is not rationally related to a public purpose.
UL is an independent, not-for-profit laboratory that tests various products for compliance with nationally recognized safety standards and requirements. Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States , 458 F.3d 1327, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ; United States v. 10,510 Packaged Computer Towers, More or Less (Computer Towers ), 152 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2001). "Manufacturers submit samples of their products to UL for examination and testing so that UL may independently determine if the products meet specific standards and requirements for fire, electrical, and casualty hazards."