an immediate threat to public health or safety, or isevidence of a crime, or contraband; and2. Absent an immediate threat to public health orsafety, destruction of said seized property withoutmaintaining it in a secure location for a period of lessthan 90 days.
Lavan v. City of Los Angeles
, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1020(C.D. Cal. 2011).The district court expanded upon the great leeway the Cityretains to protect public health and safety, noting: “The City[is] able to lawfully seize and detain property, as well asremove hazardous debris and other trash; issuance of theinjunction . . . merely prevent[s the City] from
seizing and destroying personal property that is not aban-doned without providing any meaningful notice and opportu-nity to be heard.”
at 1019.In this appeal, the City does not challenge the scope of theinjunction, nor does it ask us to modify its terms; instead, theCity argues only that the district court applied the wrong legalstandard in evaluating Appellees’ claims.
We conclude thatthe Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect homeless per-sons from government seizure and summary destruction of
Public critics of the district court’s ruling have mischaracterized boththe breadth of the district court’s order and the substance of the City’sappeal.
, Carol Schatz, “Enabling homelessness on L.A.’s skidrow,”
, April 9, 2012; Estela Lopez, “Skid row: Hoarding trashon sidewalks isn’t a right,”
, Feb. 28, 2012,
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/skid-row-trash-sidewalks-blowback.html. The injunction does not require the City to allow hazard-ous debris to remain on Skid Row, nor does the City quibble with the con-tours of the order. Rather, the City seeks a broad ruling that it may seizeand immediately destroy any personal possessions, including medications,legal documents, family photographs, and bicycles, that are left momentar-ily unattended in violation of a municipal ordinance.