Friday, September 7, 2012

A rare good case on homeless people's property

Only a little to add to Bob Egelko's good writeup of Lavan v. City of LA, in which the federal Ninth Circuit held that a city can't immediately seize property that is set down outdoors, nor destroy it without notice, just because the owners aren't with it every moment. Applying especially to homeless people but also to, presumably, anyone else.

Just that I like the court's choice of words for the character of the possessions involved: "unabandoned, momentarily unattended property." (Noted via CEB's Twitter brief.) Especially "unabandoned," which appears throughout the decision.

Also that attorney Carol Sobel, who won the case, rocks.

No comments:

Post a Comment