LAVAN v. City of Los Angeles
797 F. Supp. 2d 1005
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Eight homeless plaintiffs sue the City of Los Angeles, alleging Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, California constitutional provisions, Civil Code sections, and conversion due to property seizures/destructions.
- Plaintiffs allege LAPD and Bureau of Street Services confiscated and immediately destroyed non-abandoned personal belongings left temporarily in public spaces to use restrooms, eat, or attend court in Skid Row since February 2011.
- The Court issued an April 22, 2010 TRO blocking purportedly unconstitutional practices and required show-cause for a preliminary injunction.
- The City argues the property was abandoned or legally seize-able as evidence of crime, and cites municipal cleanups as justification for seizures.
- Plaintiffs provide declarations and photos indicating items were not abandoned and were neatly packed, suggesting ownership and lack of abandonment.
- Court analyzes whether the City’s on-the-spot seizure and destruction compliance with Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections, considering prior similar cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs show likelihood of Fourth Amendment violation | Lavan and others will show unabandoned property was seized/destructed unreasonably. | Seizure with claimed abandonment or as evidence of crime can be lawful under plain view/abandonment doctrines. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on Fourth Amendment claims. |
| Whether plaintiffs show likelihood of Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations | Property seized and destroyed without pre- or post-deprivation hearing violates due process. | Practical concerns justify expedited cleanup with limited process. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed on due-process claims due to lack of meaningful notice/hearing. |
| Whether irreparable harm is established | Constitutional rights violations and ongoing practices cause irreparable harm to homeless individuals’ property. | Injury is manageable with remedies after the fact. | Irreparable harm established; constitutional rights at stake justify injunction. |
| Balance of equities and public interest | Personal belongings protection outweighs city clean-up interests; injunction serves public interest. | Street cleaning and safety justify preserving city interests. | Equities and public interest favor plaintiffs; injunction appropriate. |
| Scope and specificity of the injunction under Rule 65(d) | Injunction must protect prevailing parties’ rights beyond named plaintiffs where necessary. | Limited to named plaintiffs and specific acts. | injunction phrased to extend protection to others in same situation where necessary to give relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (unreasonable seizures depend on balancing intrusion and governmental interests)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property)
- Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (homeless property enjoys Fourth Amendment protection; legitimate privacy interests exist)
- United States v. Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1993) (prior hearing and post-deprivation procedures considered in certain seizure contexts)
- United States v. Wider, 951 F.2d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (abandoned property and standing considerations in search/seizure cases)