By: Derek Hawkins//April 26, 2016//
Case Name: Mary Zappa et al v. Carlos Gonzlaez, et al
Case No.: No. 14-3223
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, and BRUCE, District Judge.
District court did not abuse discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction over state claims. No 4th amendment violations occurred.
“This case is a far cry from the situation the Supreme Court faced in Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56 (1992), in which law enforcement officers helped a private mobile‐ home‐park owner forcibly detach a home from its spot and tow it off. The deputy sheriffs knew that the park owner did not have an eviction order and that its actions were unlaw‐ ful. Id. at 59. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the seizure and removal of the family whose home was carried away implicated their Fourth Amendment rights. Following Soldal, we have said that in general the Fourth Amendment governs property seizures when there is “some meaningful interference with an individual’s posses‐ sory interests” in the property. Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 805, 809 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, no such interference occurred. No one ever took the 2004 motorcycle from Hahn and Zappa, and neither one of them was ever arrested. The worst that happened was a threat of arrest, to which Hahn responded by returning the motorcycle to the Lake Zurich police.”
Affirmed