Whether a municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for a warrantless seizure of an automobile based on probable cause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Every year, thousands of automobiles are identified in law enforcement databases as stolen or wanted in connection with crimes. Warrants for seizure of automobiles in public places on probable cause have never been required under the Fourth Amendment — yet the judgment of the Court of Appeals here imposes liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 on petitioners due to a warrantless seizure of a truck pursuant to a “wanted” bulletin, notwithstanding probable cause to believe that the truck was evidence or an instrumentality of crime. The Court of Appeals also held that the practice of a towing contractor of a different jurisdiction, to detain automobiles seized pursuant to “wanted” bulletins issued by a different police agency, could result in liability of a city under §1983, notwithstanding that the private actor had no contractual relationship with and was not acting at direction of petitioner City. These holdings conflict with decisions of this Court and other Circuits. I. Whether a municipality, whose officers issued a “wanted” report supported by probable cause to believe that an automobile was an instrumentality or evidence of a crime, resulting in the seizure of an automobile by officers of another jurisdiction, can be held liable for a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, in an action by the vehicle’s owner under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for seizure of the automobile? II. Whether the “rigorous standards” of causation and culpability governing municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 permit such liability against a ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued municipality to be predicated on the conduct of a nongovernmental actor in retaining property seized by police, on the basis of the non-governmental actor’s own policy or custom of enforcing “wanted” bulletins from law enforcement agencies, without any other connection with the municipality against which the §1983 action is brought? iii PARTIES Petitioner City of St. Louis, appellee-defendant below, is a constitutional charter city under Missouri law. Petitioner Doc’s Towing, Inc., appellee-defendant below, is a closely held Missouri corporation. Respondent Mary Meier, appellant-plaintiff below, is an individual citizen of Missouri. The Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, a state agency, was initially a party defendant below but was dropped by the amended complaint; the City of St. Louis is the successor in interest to said Board.