COURT RULES ON PROPERTY RETURN

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) - The Supreme Court has ruled that when
police seize property in a criminal investigation, the Constitution
does not require them to provide the owner with notice of state rules
on getting the property back.

The unanimous judgment today reverses a lower court ruling in a case
out of West Covina, Calif.

West Covina police were investigating a cocaine and murder case when
they obtained a search warrant for the home of Lawrence and Clara
Perkins in 1993. The officers had found evidence linking a boarder at
the home to the murder crime scene in another part of town.

When they entered the Perkins home, the officers did not know which
room was boarder's bedroom, so they searched the whole house, which
was empty at the time of the raid.

Court records say police found gang photos, some depicting the
boarder, and seized a shotgun. They also seized a starter pistol and
$2, 469 from a locked bedroom closet.

The house was left in disarray. Officers left a notice telling the
absent occupants of the search and the warrant.

Perkins, who was not charged with anything, claimed the cash and
starter pistol and attempted to get his property back. When he had to
jump through a series of legal hoops and still couldn't get his
property back because no one told him he needed to get the search
warrant number, Perkins filed suit in federal court.

He claimed arbitrary intrusion into his privacy and said the city and
Los Angeles County had failed to properly train police. A federal
judge sided with the city, but an appeals court ruled that there
should have been a hearing before the seizure of Perkins' property.

The appeals court also ruled the city had failed to tell Perkins how
to get his property back.

But writing for the Supreme Court majority today, Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote, ``The court of appeals' far-reaching notice requirement
not only lacks support in our precedent but also conflicts with the
well-established practice of the states and the federal
government.''

The unanimous ruling reverses the appeals court and sends the case
back down for a rehearing based on today's Supreme Court opinion. (No.
97-1230, West Covina vs. Perkins et al.)