SACRAMENTO: Federal court hears from homeless about police seizing their possessions

Sacramento Bee ^ | 5/10/11 | Cynthia Hubert

[SmithL]

Homeless men and women – weathered by the elements and carrying bags and backpacks – are getting a chance to tell their side of the story in federal court about how the city of Sacramento treats them.

In a highly unusual case that focuses on their nightly searches for places to sleep, the city's down and out are pitted against city police who are charged with enforcing a local ordinance prohibiting camping in undesignated areas for more than 24 hours at a time.

The civil class action, brought on behalf of all homeless people in Sacramento who have lost tents, blankets, photographs and other personal property in police sweeps since 2005, is one of few cases of its kind in the nation, attorneys said.

"This is going to be a full education" on the struggles that homeless people face daily, plaintiffs attorney Mark Merin promised the U.S. District Court jury in opening statements on Monday. Chief among those struggles, he said, is "trying to hang onto your property when you are living outdoors."

Merin argues that the city has violated the constitutional rights of homeless people in its "policy and practice" of seizing their belongings without proper notification, discarding it as trash, and failing to tell them how it might be retrieved.

[onedoug]

Bums Inc

[relictele]

"This is going to be a full education" on the struggles that homeless people face daily, plaintiffs attorney Mark Merin promised

Here I thought it was a legal case.

Give me ambulance chasers over lawyers attempting to make laws via the courts.

[AnyStreetFL]

Bums Inc

Just curious, if they were not bums, would you have been outraged about it? More than likely the lawyers for the homeless are stretching the truth and the "stuff" the police collects is mostly junk, but that is not their decision to make. It is private property! One man's junk ...

[fremont_steve]

Hokay - there are always two sides to things.

The side you aren’t considering is that of the City. They are trying to prevent an eyesore, a health hazard, litter, etc. that is represented by homeless camps. Make your choice as to which legitimate purpose you ascribe to the city ordinance.

Their method - you leave something for over 24hrs in a single location - it’s abandoned and considered trash to be disposed of.

This simple statement ignore possibilities of the “tent” being occupado when the police show-up. Don’t know how that’s handled.

For the sake of discussion I’ll ignore that possibility - just assumed no-one is around during the sweep. That being the case - how do you tell the difference between something that has been abandoned and something that has been left un-attended for 24 hours? A difference without a distinction.

I haven’t got a problem with the city’s method. The homeless know that they can’t stay in one place for more than 24 hours. The city enforces the law.

Next...

[AnyStreetFL]

I haven’t got a problem with the city’s method. The homeless know that they can’t stay in one place for more than 24 hours. The city enforces the law.

The problem here that the lawsuit is ridiculous. The bigger issue here is that there's a problem here with the government and their reps deciding what is legally one's private property and what it is not. These are the same clowns who tell you how tall your grass must be, how many cars one can have in the drive way and it can go on. Please, also observe, that neither side explains when and how is the property confiscated which means that both sides are breaking the law. I am more concerned with the government doing that.

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

Hey, that cop took my bag of cans and my....other bag of cans!

Actually, I agree with you. It's their stuff.

[TheOldLady]

Calling for Donors!

Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10

Lazamataz is our best friend!

[Vaduz]

Police seizing their possessions of other peoples possessions.

[bikerman]

Urban outdoors men as Boortz calls them

[onedoug]

Obviously you´ve never had their ¨personal property¨ trash-up your place, thus you might consider yourself lucky.

[AnyStreetFL]

Obviously you´ve never had their ¨personal property¨ trash-up your place, thus you might consider yourself lucky.

So now, according to you, what constitutes "personal property" is at the discretion of others? If they broke the law and they trashed the place, the laws need to be applied. But the problem always begin with the small infraction and us looking the other way when it comes to the ones some deem to be .. well .. less meritorious until the city and the police knocks at your own door telling you that you have too much crap in your front yard!

I was born and raised in communism and I take private property concept quite seriously because I know what it actually means to have the government take away from you what is rightfully yours, just because they decide they know better. So spare me the nuances, when it comes to private property, it applies to everyone. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

You have yourself a great day!

[onedoug]

Obviously you´ve never had their ¨personal property¨ trash-up your place either.