Homeless Sue Sacramento For Lost Possessions

[Kadie]

Homeless Sue Sacramento For Lost Possessions

Federal Trial Slated To Begin Next Week

POSTED: 11:10 am PDT May 6, 2011
UPDATED: 2:14 pm PDT May 6, 2011


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A trial is scheduled to begin next Monday in federal court over a lawsuit that alleges Sacramento city officials illegally seized the possessions of homeless people.

Attorney Mark Merin said he will be representing the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit. He said 60 people have made depositions and that as many as 2,000 could eventually be involved. He said the seized items included tents, poles and sleeping bags.

"I think the city had a mandate to clean up areas where homeless people were living," said Merin. "And it felt that the easiest way to do it was just to take the stuff and toss it."

Merin said the plaintiffs will be seeking damages for property seized during a seven-year period including during the high-profile closure of the illegal campground known as Tent City.

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/27803581/detail.html#ixzz1LbuKkO3A


Survey at link...

Should the city of Sacramento pay up after seizing possessions of the homeless?

Yes 16 55%
No 13 45%

[tularetom]

1. They could make a case for seizing the stuff if

they sold it to recoup the cost of clearing out the areas. Not that I would agree but there would be a plausible defense.

But it sounds to me like they just seized it in order to be dicks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Nevermind that that tent, sleeping bag and extra pair of pants might be

all the guy owns in the world.

If anybody else took it, for ANY reason, it would be called 'stealing'.

[tularetom]

3. Whoa, I didn't say I agreed with them

All I'm saying is they could defend their actions by saying they needed to recover the cost of the eviction process. Which might placate the taxpayers.

But it sounds like they just chucked the stuff they seized, and thus they have no economic defense.

So yes I do believe the homeless people have a pretty good case.

[petronius]

8. There was a thread a few weeks ago about found money, and the police stated

that if you did not make a good faith effort to return the property - even just a dollar - you were stealing. It seems to me that it would be obvious that encampment property was not abandoned, so the theft argument could perhaps apply. (IIRC, the article I'm referring to was about San Francisco.)

Of course, I would imagine that the city could have easily gotten around it by 'impounding' the property and charging a recovery fee, but since they chose to be assholes they should reap the punishment...

[Starry Messenger]

4. k&r

[kestrel91316]

5. I have had to deal for the better part of 15 years with a homeless encampment

that crops up periodically in the vacant lot next to my business. Homeless drunks and druggies hang out, accumulating filthy belongings, defecating all over the sidewalks and parking lots and such, breaking into local businesses, and being an abominable nuisance overall. Yeah, they have tarps. And shopping carts. And discarded food containers (that they are too lazy to toss in one of the many available dumpsters in the area). And discarded liquor containers. And treasure troves of filthy, torn clothes and discarded telephones and broken toys and junk junk junk. The rats love it.

So I kind of get why the city took their stuff and booted them.

I don't know what the answer is. I just know how frustrating it is.

[msedano]

6. mortal sin v. venial sin

the nuns would drill in the distinction. if you steal a dollar from a rich person, that's a venial sin. if you steal a needle from a blind seamstress whose only livelihood comes of that needle, that is a mortal sin. applied to sacramento's finest (sacramento, what an irony), they stole the needle.

i know it's a quaint belief, sin, but it works for me here.

mvs

[WatsonT]

7. I would need to read more about it

why was their property confiscated?

[Melinda]

9. The poll (survey) at your link has been freeped. n/t