A federal court has ruled on a significant case regarding the seizure of cell phones by police during racial justice protests in Washington, D.C. The decision affects individuals who were arrested during these protests and raises important questions about civil rights and police practices.

The case, Asinor v. District of Columbia, was filed after a series of protests in the summer of 2020 following the murder of George Floyd. The court's ruling addresses the constitutional rights of protesters and the responsibilities of law enforcement in handling seized property.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case, Oyoma Asinor and several others, were involved in protests against police violence. They allege that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) unlawfully seized their cell phones during these demonstrations and failed to return them in a timely manner. Many of the plaintiffs were not charged with any crimes, yet their phones were held for extended periods, leading to claims of violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

The case began in August 2021 when the plaintiffs filed their complaints against the District of Columbia. They argued that the MPD's actions constituted unlawful seizures and conversion of their property. The court initially dismissed the claims, but the D.C. Circuit Court later reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed based on the plaintiffs' allegations of prolonged retention of their property.

The Ruling

On October 21, 2026, Judge Amit P. Mehta issued a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the District of Columbia. The court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a custom of the MPD that violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Judge Mehta stated, "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the District has a persistent and widespread custom of seizing and unreasonably withholding phones." This ruling allows the plaintiffs' claims to move forward in court.

The court also addressed the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. It declined to dismiss the conversion claims related to the seizure of cell phones but granted the dismissal of other state law claims that did not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims. The court noted, "Asinor has not done enough to plausibly allege meaningful overlap between the operative facts of his state and federal claims."

Impact

This ruling is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the rights of individuals during protests and highlights the need for police accountability regarding the seizure of personal property. The court's decision may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, particularly concerning the treatment of protesters and the handling of their belongings by law enforcement.

The outcome of this case could also influence how police departments across the country handle property seizures during demonstrations. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional protections, which could lead to changes in policy and training for law enforcement agencies.

What's Next

The District of Columbia may choose to appeal the court's ruling, particularly regarding the claims that were allowed to proceed. Additionally, the plaintiffs' cases will move forward in court, where they will have the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments regarding the alleged violations of their rights.