6th. Circuit's Coroner/Family Rights Decision

In a legal battle that's dragged on for almost two decades now, the 6th. Circuit Court of Appeals here in Cincinnati last Tuesday ruled that "coroners don't have to tell families when they keep body parts of a relative after an autopsy, as long as they have an investigative reason for withholding the organs balancing the rights of families and the responsibilities of coroners," the Cincinnati Enquirer reported. ( Holding )

"Christopher Albrecht, a 30-year-old cable installer, drowned in December 2001 in southern Ohio after suffering a seizure and losing control of his van. The vehicle ran off the road and landed upside down in a retention pond," an ABA Journal article discussing the early parts of the case recounted. "Under Ohio law, the bodies of those who die in motor vehicle accidents must undergo an autopsy—the same as those who die violently or suspiciously or unattended, or who simply happen to be younger than age 2… But it wasn’t until five years later, when the Albrechts saw for the first time a copy of the autopsy report, that they realized not all of what had been Christopher had been laid to rest. His brain had been removed for examination, and at the time he was buried—a few days after the accident—it was still in at the Hamilton County coroner’s office."

The Albrechts filed a class-action lawsuit in Dec. 2006 for "damages & class injunctive relief to challenge the practices, standards, customs and policies & procedures employed by (all Ohio coroners) in removing body parts & organs of deceased individuals and retaining said body parts & organs without due process of law in violation of equal protection provided by law and other Constitutional rights, including, but not limited to, liberty and freedom of religion."

Being a question of first impression in Ohio, the district court certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court, which answered the question in the negative, stating that there is no constitutionally protected property interest in human remains retained by the state of Ohio for criminal investigation purposes. The district court consequently held that the Albrechts had no property interest in the brain.

In appealing, the Albrechts argued that the Sixth Circuit's rulings in Brotherton v. Cleveland and Whaley v. County of Tuscola, holding that a spouse had a protected property interest in her husband’s corneas, which were removed for donation purposes, should rule this case, as opposed to the Ohio Supreme Court's answer to the certified question.

Citing their 1995 precedent, the Court said, "Federal law is clear that the states define property rights in their respective jurisdictions. See Craft v. U.S. Through C.I.R., (6 th. Cir. 1998) (Ryan, J., concurring) ("state property law determines which rights, in the bundle of rights we call ‘property,’ a person may exercise."). The Ohio Supreme Court explicitly delineated
the lack of property rights in this case in Albrecht II. That Court held that next of kin have no right to autopsy specimens removed and retained by the coroner, in furtherance of a criminal investigation. Although there is no dispute as to the facts as the Albrechts present them, they had no property interest in their son’s brain, thus, they cannot support the first element of a due process clause claim. Their claim fails as a matter of law. "[I]f state actors . . . do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of the plaintiffs, there can be no due process violation.'" Whaley v. County of Tuscola, (6th. Cir. 1995).