Tony Lavan v. City of Los Angeles
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18639
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellees are nine homeless individuals in Skid Row, Los Angeles, who left unabandoned possessions on sidewalks while attending to basic needs.
- City police and staff seized and immediately destroyed those unattended possessions, despite none being abandoned under ordinary usage.
- District court granted TRO and then a preliminary injunction limiting seizures and requiring notice and storage when possible.
- Court relied on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections, finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits against the City’s practice.
- City did not challenge the injunction’s scope but argued the district court applied the wrong legal standard; appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion.
- Injunction allows lawful seizure/detention of property that appears abandoned or hazardous, but bars on-the-spot destruction of unabandoned property without notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment protects unattended personal property from seizure and destruction | Lavan argued unabandoned property on Skid Row is protected | City argued no Fourth Amendment protection for unattended property under LAMC 56.11 | Yes, Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures of unabandoned property |
| Whether due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice and hearing before destruction | Appellees contend property interests require notice and opportunity to be heard | City argued no protected property interest in unattended sidewalk property | Yes, due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before permanent deprivation |
| Whether protected property interests exist in unattended items left on public sidewalks | Property interest exists in personal possessions | No constitutionally protected interest in unattended sidewalk property | Property interests exist; but the district court properly analyzed the due process standard; decision affirmed as to protections against arbitrary destruction |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in applying the correct standards for injunction | District court applied Fourth/Fourteenth standards appropriately | Appellants dispute standard application | No abuse of discretion; injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (Fourth Amendment protection extends to possessory interests even without privacy expectation)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (Seizure includes interference with possessory interests; destruction can constitute a seizure)
- Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005) (Notice and opportunity to be heard are required before impoundment/destruction when property is taken under color of law)
- Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (Due process requires notice and entitlement to be heard before property seizure")
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (Due process prevents final destruction of property without entitlement to claim)