Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Bilida appealed the decision of the trial court that found she had no property rights in a raccoon she adopted.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A person may not have property rights in illegal objects.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
View Full Point of Law
Bilida rescued a raccoon that was required to have a permit to possess. The police responded to an alarm at Bilida’s house and seized the raccoon. Bilida sued the director of the department for violating her due process rights. The trial court found for the defendant.
Issue.
Whether someone may have property rights in illegal objects?
Held.
No. Because a wild raccoon cannot be possessed without a permit, Bilida has no property interest in the raccoon. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Discussion.
Case law makes it illegal to constitutionally protect objects that are illegal to possess.