Introduction

AmeriSource Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded company AmerisourceBergen, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on October 15, 2008. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which upheld the government's seizure of AmeriSource's property under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause without providing just compensation. The core issue revolves around whether the government’s confiscation of property from an innocent third party for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution constitutes a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, AmeriSource shipped pharmaceuticals to Norfolk Pharmacy, retaining title and a security interest until payment was made. Unbeknownst to AmeriSource, Norfolk Pharmacy was indicted on various charges, prompting the government to seize the shipment as potential evidence. Norfolk ceased operations without settling the debt, leading AmeriSource to seek the return of their property. The district court denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, establishing that such seizures under the police power do not constitute compensable takings. AmeriSource contends that this decision misinterprets the Fifth Amendment by failing to require just compensation for the confiscation of lawful property from an innocent third party.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The petition references several key cases to bolster its argument:

• ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) - Emphasizes that security interests are protected under the Takings Clause.
• BENNIS v. MICHIGAN, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) - Addresses forfeiture without compensation but differs in that property ownership was transferred to the state.
• Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) - Established a categorical exemption for seizures under police power, which AmeriSource challenges.
• BROWN v. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASHington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003) and Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) - Discuss the requirements of public use and just compensation.
• Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) - Recognizes that overreaching regulations can constitute a taking requiring compensation.

Legal Reasoning

AmeriSource argues that the government's seizure of its property, which was neither contraband nor used in criminal activity, mandates compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court’s reliance on Acadia Technology and Bennis to establish a broad exemption for police power actions is contested. AmeriSource asserts that a literal and historical interpretation of the Takings Clause requires compensation for such seizures, especially when the property owner is innocent and the property retains its lawful status.

The petition contends that the Federal Circuit's decision conflicts with the historical intent of the Takings Clause, which was designed to prevent the government from arbitrarily seizing private property without compensation. By categorically exempting seizures under police power from the requirement of just compensation, the appellate court deviates from established jurisprudence that necessitates compensation for physical takings.

Impact

Should the Supreme Court grant the petition and rule in favor of AmeriSource, it would establish a significant precedent requiring the government to compensate innocent third parties for the seizure of lawful property used solely as evidence in criminal prosecutions. This could lead to increased accountability in law enforcement seizures and potentially impact a wide range of cases where property is confiscated during investigations. Furthermore, it would limit the government's ability to avoid compensatory responsibilities through broad exemptions under police power.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Takings Clause

The Takings Clause is part of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "No person shall... be deprived of property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It serves to protect individuals from the government’s power of eminent domain by ensuring that when private property is seized for public purposes, the owner receives fair compensation.

Police Power vs. Eminent Domain

Police Power refers to the government’s authority to regulate behavior and enforce order to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. Actions under police power typically include regulations like zoning laws and public health mandates.

Eminent Domain, on the other hand, is the power of the government to take private property for public use, provided that just compensation is given to the owner. Unlike police power, eminent domain involves the outright appropriation of property rights.

The crux of the case lies in whether the government's seizure of property for evidentiary purposes falls under police power, thus exempting it from the requirement of just compensation, or whether it constitutes a compensable taking under the Takings Clause.

Conclusion

The petition by AmeriSource challenges a foundational aspect of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence by asserting that the government must compensate innocent third parties for property seized as evidence in criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari and address this issue would clarify the boundaries between police power and eminent domain, ensuring that the Takings Clause protects individual property rights against arbitrary government seizures. This case underscores the ongoing tension between effective law enforcement practices and constitutional protections, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that respects both public safety and private property rights.