Help on Amicus Brief

CT
Chuck Thompson
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 10:08 PM

IMLA will be filing an amicus brief to support the City of Los Angeles in a very important case and we are delighted that Best, Best and Krieger has agreed to represent us pro bono with a very short turnaround. Kira Klatchko is taking the lead and we need your help so that we might better position the brief, please take a look at the following information and let us know as much as you can as to your policies:

We could use your help with an amicus brief we are preparing to file with the U.S. Supreme Court.  This case involves balancing public health and safety concerns with the rights of homeless individuals, which is something I know that many of you may have experience with.

In Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit, in a published decision, affirmed an injunction prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing or destroying unattended property left on city streets by homeless individuals during a scheduled street cleaning, in violation of local code.  A warning about the street cleaning was posted throughout the neighborhood, and locals were warned that property left unattended during street cleaning would be disposed of.  Still, the Court held that the City violated both the Fourth Amendment's bar on unreasonable seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement for procedural due process when City employees disposed of personal property belonging to homeless individuals.

The City has filed a cert petition, and IMLA plans to file an amicus brief in support. The City argues that disposing of unattended property does not have constitutional implications because the plaintiffs did not have a privacy or possessory interest in the property that they left unattended. The City's petition describes how the Ninth Circuit's decision makes it effectively impossible to clean the City sidewalks, which have become so dirty and overrun with unattended property that they no longer serve their intended purpose -- a public right-of-way.

If you have direct experience with these issues it would be helpful to hear from you.  We would like to know if your community has a street-cleaning or other public safety ordinance similar to the one at issue here, and would be grateful for information about what, if any, legal challenges you have been facing in enforcing these ordinances.  We'd be particularly interested in accommodations you have made for homeless individuals, to underscore the point that this issue is one best addressed at a local level, not under a federal constitutional standard.

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Executive Director and General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
202-466-5424  x7110
Direct: 202-742-1016
Cell: 240-876-6790
Plan ahead:
IMLA Mid-Year Seminar April 14-16, 2013
IMLA'S Annual Conference in San Francisco September 29-October 2, 2013

IMLA will be filing an amicus brief to support the City of Los Angeles in a very important case and we are delighted that Best, Best and Krieger has agreed to represent us pro bono with a very short turnaround. Kira Klatchko is taking the lead and we need your help so that we might better position the brief, please take a look at the following information and let us know as much as you can as to your policies: We could use your help with an amicus brief we are preparing to file with the U.S. Supreme Court. This case involves balancing public health and safety concerns with the rights of homeless individuals, which is something I know that many of you may have experience with. In Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit, in a published decision, affirmed an injunction prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from removing or destroying unattended property left on city streets by homeless individuals during a scheduled street cleaning, in violation of local code. A warning about the street cleaning was posted throughout the neighborhood, and locals were warned that property left unattended during street cleaning would be disposed of. Still, the Court held that the City violated both the Fourth Amendment's bar on unreasonable seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement for procedural due process when City employees disposed of personal property belonging to homeless individuals. The City has filed a cert petition, and IMLA plans to file an amicus brief in support. The City argues that disposing of unattended property does not have constitutional implications because the plaintiffs did not have a privacy or possessory interest in the property that they left unattended. The City's petition describes how the Ninth Circuit's decision makes it effectively impossible to clean the City sidewalks, which have become so dirty and overrun with unattended property that they no longer serve their intended purpose -- a public right-of-way. If you have direct experience with these issues it would be helpful to hear from you. We would like to know if your community has a street-cleaning or other public safety ordinance similar to the one at issue here, and would be grateful for information about what, if any, legal challenges you have been facing in enforcing these ordinances. We'd be particularly interested in accommodations you have made for homeless individuals, to underscore the point that this issue is one best addressed at a local level, not under a federal constitutional standard. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director and General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 202-466-5424 x7110 Direct: 202-742-1016 Cell: 240-876-6790 Plan ahead: IMLA Mid-Year Seminar April 14-16, 2013 IMLA'S Annual Conference in San Francisco September 29-October 2, 2013