PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ordered that a civil rights lawsuit over an allegedly unlawful seizure of a firearms cache needs additional evidence in support of the parties’ Second Amendment arguments.
Involved are the parents of a man who committed a murderous attack against a state police barracks in 2014, plus the Pike County District Attorney’s Office and the Pennsylvania State Police. Eugene Michael Frein and Deborah Frein of Canadensis first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 10 versus the Pennsylvania State Police of Harrisburg, plus the Pike County District Attorney’s Office, Pike County District Attorney Ray Tonkin and John/Jane Does I-V, all of Milford.
The plaintiffs are the parents of Eric Frein, who shot and killed Pennsylvania State Trooper Byron K. Dickson II and wounded Pennsylvania State Trooper Alex Douglass on Sept. 12, 2014, at a Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Blooming Groove.
After 48-day manhunt, Frein was captured at an abandoned airport in the Poconos on Oct. 30, 2014.
On April 19, 2017, Frein was found guilty on the slew of charges he faced, which included first-degree murder and attempted murder, and then on April 27, Frein was formally sentenced to death by lethal injection. Frein now awaits execution on death row at SCI-Greene, a maximum security state prison.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit hearkens back to Sept. 16, 2014, when the Pennsylvania State Police executed a search warrant at their Monroe County home, in Canadensis.
During the execution of the warrant, authorities seized a long list of weapons and technology belonging to the plaintiffs – including 19 pistols, 25 rifles, two shotguns, ammunition and reloading supplies, camera memory cards, compact discs, two IBM laptops, one VHS camcorder and videotape.
“The aforementioned property had no evidentiary value in the criminal case against Eric Frein and was not used in his criminal trial. Even if such evidence were utilized, Eric Frein has lost his direct appeal. The United State Supreme Court has denied review. This property belongs to plaintiffs, not Eric Frein,” the suit stated.
“This property was not contraband and was legally obtained, owned and used by plaintiffs. As of the filing of this complaint, defendants continue to hold the aforementioned property, despite requests for its return. Defendants have provided no compensation to plaintiffs as a result of taking their property. Defendants all continue to object to the return of plaintiffs’ property for no lawful or valid reason.”
The Pike County District Attorney’s Office and Tonkin filed a motion to dismiss the Freins’ lawsuit on Aug. 3, contending that the possessions were seized in the course of serving a lawful search warrant, and thus no violation of the law occurred.
The Pennsylvania State Police additionally filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on Aug. 18.
According to the state police, the Freins did not show that their Constitutional rights were violated and such claims should fail as a matter of law – and thus, the case in its entirety should be dismissed.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Malachy E. Mannion threw the case out on March 29, ruling to grant the defendants’ dismissal motions.
“Although the plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the facts of this case from those of the cases relied upon by the defendants and this court, the property relevant to this action was seized pursuant to a valid search warrant,” Mannion said.
“The Third Circuit has on more than one occasion found that the seizure of property pursuant to a valid search warrant does not constitute a ‘taking’ under the Fifth Amendment because “items properly seized by the government under its police power are not seized for ‘public use’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Because the court finds that the defendants’ seizure of the property at issue does not constitute a ‘taking’ under the Fifth Amendment, the court will grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss this claim.”
Mannion dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim for unlawful seizure, since the Freins were provided a method of redress for their grievances – even though they ultimately were not granted the relief they sought.
“Here, Pennsylvania law provides a process to request the return of seized property. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588 provides an adequate remedy when police seize property pursuant to an investigation,” Mannion stated.
“In this case, the plaintiffs took advantage of the process available under Pennsylvania state law when they filed a motion for the return of their property pursuant to Rule 588(A). Although they were denied the relief they sought, the plaintiffs received the process they were due. Thus, the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim will also be dismissed.”
Finally, Mannion said that no Second Amendment violations took place, since the Freins were only prevented from possessing the firearms that were seized, and not prevented from possessing any firearms at all.
“Plaintiffs contend that the seizure of all of their firearms and failure to return them to this point infringes on their Second Amendment rights. However, whether the defendants seized one weapon or forty-six, their actions do not impose a burden on plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms generally, but rather only their right to bear the particular weapons that were seized,” Mannion said.
“The plaintiffs present no evidence that they could not obtain other firearms for their self-defense. Given this, the defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims will be granted.”
UPDATE
After the case ended, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit on April 26, 2021.
On Feb. 25, Third Circuit Clerk Patricia S. Dodszuweit ordered, on behalf of the Court, that the parties would need to provide additional evidence to support their arguments.
“We order the parties to file supplemental briefing. The parties should address whether the Commonwealth’s actions comport with the Second Amendment’s text and history. Letter briefs shall not exceed seven single-spaced pages and must be filed by Friday, March 11, at 5 p.m. Hard copies are not necessary,” Dodszuweit said.
The plaintiffs are represented by Cornelius J. Rotteveel and Curt M. Parkins of Comerford Law, in Scranton.
The defendants are represented by Jonathan M. Blake of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office in Harrisburg, and David J. MacMain of MacMain Law Group, in Malvern.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 21-1830
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00939
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com