Warren E. Hanvey v. W. D. Blankenship, H. E. Thompson

Fourth Circuit

Warren E. Hanvey v. W. D. Blankenship, H. E. Thompson

631 F.2d 296, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13687

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 1980

Docket79-6514

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 631 F.2d 296 (Warren E. Hanvey v. W. D. Blankenship, H. E. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warren E. Hanvey v. W. D. Blankenship, H. E. Thompson, 631 F.2d 296, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13687 (4th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Warren Hanvey seeks return of the $750 that prison officials confiscated from him as contraband following its discovery in his possession during a routine prison shakedown. Because prison regulations explicitly prohibit unauthorized possession of any United States currency, prison officials, having found Hanvey guilty of the violation, placed the $750 in the Inmate Canteen Fund. The district court held that this forfeiture did not violate Hanvey’s constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process. We affirm.

When statutory authority permits a forfeiture such as this one, no constitutional violation occurs. Sell v. Parrot, (8th Cir. 1977) 548 F.2d 753, 759. In this case, we feel that §§ 53-23.1 and 53-223 of the Virginia Code, when read in conjunction, must be construed as authorizing the action prison officials took against Hanvey. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief to Hanvey for the reasons it stated in Hanvey v. Blankenship, 474 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D.Va.1979).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Warren Hanvey seeks return of the $750 that prison officials confiscated from him as contraband following its discovery in his possession during a routine prison shakedown. Because prison regulations explicitly prohibit unauthorized possession of any United States currency, prison officials, having found Hanvey guilty of the violation, placed the $750 in the Inmate Canteen Fund. The district court held that this forfeiture did not violate Hanvey’s constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process. We affirm.

When statutory authority permits a forfeiture such as this one, no constitutional violation occurs. Sell v. Parrot, (8th Cir. 1977) 548 F.2d 753, 759. In this case, we feel that §§ 53-23.1 and 53-223 of the Virginia Code, when read in conjunction, must be construed as authorizing the action prison officials took against Hanvey. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief to Hanvey for the reasons it stated in Hanvey v. Blankenship, 474 F.Supp. 1349 (W.D.Va.1979).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 F.2d 296, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-e-hanvey-v-w-d-blankenship-h-e-thompson-ca4-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack