Facts

Richard Tarantino Jr.'s neighbor complained to the City of Concord about a vehicle parked in Tarantino's front yard. Tarantino, who used his property to store various cars and boats, had an unregistered 1952 Ford parked in his driveway. This was the vehicle the complaint concerned. A city official followed up on the phone call. Later, Tarantino received a letter from the city warning him that he was in violation of Concord Municipal Code Sections 62-166. The city informed Tarantino that he needed to register the vehicle or remove it. After Tarantino failed to heed the city's warning, the city sent a second letter that informed Tarantino that he faced abatement proceedings. A third letter soon followed threatening abatement within a ten-day period. When Tarantino failed to take action, the city abated the vehicle with the assistance of police officers. Within a few months, the city returned to Tarantino's property and abated two other vehicles after Tarantino failed to respond to letters sent to him from the city concerning those vehicles. All of the letters sent to Tarantino stated that he had a right to request a hearing. After a fourth vehicle was abated, the city had Tarantino's property deemed a nuisance. The city was also successful in getting a permanent injunction that ordered Tarantino to remove all vehicles that were parked outside of his home and not in operation.

Alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, retaliation and violations of his due process and Fourth Amendment rights, Tarantino filed a lawsuit against the city; city employees including Kristina Champagne, who came to his home; Byrich Corp., the tow truck company that towed his vehicles, and several of its employees. The city eventually settled with Tarantino.

DEFENDANTS’ CONTENTIONS:
The city employees claimed they were protected from suit on the basis of qualified immunity because they worked for the city. In addition, they claimed that they did not violate the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights and the vehicles were properly seized pursuant to the municipal code. The city employees contended that the city's letters informed the plaintiff that he was entitled to a hearing, thus the plaintiff's due process rights were also not violated.

Damages

The plaintiff sought damages for the loss of his vehicles, as well as for emotional distress.

Result

Defense verdict. The judge held that the defendants were not authorized to abate plaintiff's vehicle because the towed vehicles did not meet the pre-requisites for abatement under the City of Concord’s ordinance. However, the judge also found that the defendant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity, because their misinterpretation of the ordinance was not unreasonable. Moreover, there were no Fourth Amendment violations because the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy respecting the driveway from which the vehicles were towed. Therefore, the officers were not required to obtain a seizure warrant. The towing company was also cleared of any liability.

Other Information

This case is presently on appeal.