N.D.Cal.: Seizure or destruction of homeless persons’ unabandoned personal property violated 4A

“This case is similar to Lavan where the Ninth Circuit stated that when the City of Los Angeles destroyed unhoused Plaintiffs’ unabandoned personal possessions left on public sidewalks, those seizures were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 693 F.3d at 1030. Here, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the City routinely destroys their property without adequate notice and opportunity to prevent its destruction. They have stated claims under the Fourth Amendment.” Prado v. City of Berkeley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139836 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2024).*

Defendant’s invocation of his right to refuse a consent search that came out in the defense cross was not plain error, and it was slight compared to the record as a whole. United States v. Ortiz, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19737 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2024).*

Plaintiff failed to show that the Fourth Amendment claim was clearly established. St. George v. City of Lakewood, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19757 (10th Cir. Aug. 7, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Consent, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.