morning your honour's to david sackman for the plaintiff and appellant i'd like to reserve at least five minutes of my time for rebuttal and first of all i'd like to thank the deputy for kindly accommodating my client with the chairs you could fit in that with the very kind of her this case here involves the application of the due process clause in the constitution after all the other limits in the constitution all the other checks and balances the due process clause is the last defense the last wall against arbitrary and abusive government power over its citizens once that wall fails then all there is is either tyranny or revolution on the other side so it is important how not the one who's scared frankly these days and i'm frankly scared and and and that's why i think it's important that the interpretation of the due process cla e keeps it in mind that this is the last barrier and the issue presented in this particular case is the notice that is required of the government that the government he gives to to was placed on the car two days before it was towed provide this act one with some level of constructive not even actual notice no well first of all it was not actual because it was not actually seen until after the vehicle was recovered but it was actually on the windshield when the vehicle was recovered yes was important here is what kind of notice needs to be given of a time limit if you're going to park on a public street the sign says to our parking in the city tow after one hour even if it's a valid leap passed law that was published decades ago in the newspaper so the question is what kind of notice must be given before someone parks and this is specific to a time limit it's not doesn't apply to things like registration other violations of the law time limit is something that is uniquely are right there yes it was parked in a residential area right a block from her own residence so you park in your well we're not attacking the seventy two hour rule which is what you're saying that in every block in a residential neighborhood you have to a big sign says you will be coded for seventy two hours no we're not we're not asking for signs where there are no signs but where there is a sign that says a time limit should the government be held to that if the sign says two hours can they tow after one hour when we come here that's that's clear minutes is no parking anytime an underage district number one seventy one permits accepted the plaintiff had a district number one seventy one permit so according to the sign with her permit she could park any time except twelve noon to three and thursday but that goes back to just schroeder's question is so do you think there should be a fine in addition to that once again you can't park if they have another time limit it should be on the existing sign we're not asking for new signs were asking that the signs that do exist state what the actual time limit is and not misleading  apparently this law is been around for decades and while there may be other laws i mean in pasadena you can only park for fifty six hours in south pasadena you can park one hundred hours i mean and maybe i maybe i'm making this other are and that is also a time limit and that may be subject to the same rule here the point is notice notice is it's not a inflexible rule that once you publish it that's it everyone is on notice and i think what matthews the part of matthews result that no one seems to pay attention to is before it gets to the factors that everyone's talking about that are relevant here the court said it's a truism that due process unlike some legal rules is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time place the circumstance due process is flexible and calls for procedural protections as  particular situation demands it requires an alice of the government and private interests affected and so here that the issue is what kind of notice and again unlock the case that the city cites for their proposition that they just have to publish the the law and everyone is can be bound to it lock itself distinguishes individual cases where individual notice must be given because a statute to sufficiently unusual that's that's a good question and that's that's why we say this kind of statute or the way it's in force rather it is encourages arbitrary and discriminatory action because it's only by complaint so if someone doesn't like the plaintiff for some reason they can use this to get at them well we can't know because it's anonymous this is speculation i don't know well is that that makes an era but a bull presumption that as a car in the same place for seventy two hours otherwise legally parked is abandoned and that in itself is a violation of d a parking officer immediately after she parked it and they marked it and seventy two hours later they came back maybe they did know that we lived in the neighborhood maybe not but they still towed it and under this law under this please support my name is shawn debbie jacobs deputy city attorney for the defendant city of los angeles of police i think this case the court should affirm the district court's decision in the city provided all the due process that is required numerous ninth circuit cases have held that you process the notice the ticket itself is the due process that is required and to go to men's points about well there should be a sign this if you if the court looks at the statute that n x this this law it does not require signage for the seventy two hour notice so in vehicle code section two two six five one vehicle code section two two six five one case of division k which is the seventy two hour which authorize a load authorizes a locality due to enact the seventy two hour it's specifically states that when a vehicle is parked or left standing upon a highway for seventy two or more consecutive hours in violation of a local ordinance authorizing removal that that is when an officer may common highway does that mean residential street i think highway in the vehicle code is just used as a street highway  seventy two hours that's a fair point is now well i think i think the there is no requirement that because in all of the cases where there is a seventy two hour limit none of them in none of those cases where there are signs that said there is a seventy two hour limit and in some of them in the one in riley verses city of san francisco there was i believe it was a there was a parking ordinance residential preferential parking permit and that's when the court said the djinn have to be a seventy two hour sign a sign that said seventy two hours that the notice the notice on the car before it is towed is sufficient which is what happened here they the they parked the car in september twelfth the car was ticketed on september fifteenth but it wasn't towed until september seventeenth but if that were just looks at the other sections of twenty two six five one for example subdivision l talks about if if if a car is illegally parked in violation of a local ordinance and it's necessary for the city to go in to do cleaning or repair or construction of the street that there have to be signs giving notice at least twenty four hours prior to the removal prior to the towing similarly subdivision am also talks about if there is the use of a highway well how would the average person find out about the seventy two hour rule well ignorance of the laws no excuse these this law has been around at least since two thousand and six when loans lonestar was decided which is the case of the district court relied heavily on there was a slightly different version of the local ordinance and then that got amended the city amended the ordinance to comply with what twenty two six five one states well i mean it seems like of the court and lone star you know identify uses the transport system here and doesn't that make i mean uses of car parks it does that make this different from one store well it does in the sense that once a commercial  personal vehicle but again ignorance of the laws no excuse there's if there are other cases that are cited for example in the clemente versus city of glendale they talked about how there was no she had the registration where she was parking in the she was parking in the parking lot of the hotel for seven years and they didn't give her notice so the so they just towed the car immediately in the court said well there's got to be notice but a notice would be sufficient if you just left a ticket on the windshield which is what happened here but the court and lonestar specifically i guess identify them unlike when individual suffers from some anxiety and skivers that their car is not there the court lonestar concluded that will start a company and doesn't suffer from anxiety but that distinguishable here so if you're going to rely on lone star well one star also said there's no procedural due process claim regardless of the validity of the law because the mere publication of the law does provide notice so this law was published it's been around for many errors so that is that is sufficient notice people are presumed to know of the laws and because the the other statutes within the vehicle code section for example when other when the other statutes relating to one look at localities create their own parking restrictions and things like that all of those those other one say and the and the city or the locality has to provide notice subdivision k does not say you don't have to provide notice of this plain language of the statute does not require a sign so for example twenty two section twenty two six five one subdivision and which is what the appellant cited in his brief that he he wrote as he relies on that to say there should be a sign but that's that's talking about where there's a no parking restriction at all so in that case it's whenever a vehicle is parked or left standing or local authorities by resolution ordinance have prohibited prohibited parking of authorized removal of vehicles then there needs to be a science that's a no parking zone he also cites to another another example is subdivision q of twenty two six five one which says where cars parked in a common interest development where it would be a bit like a private road for example and there's there's a twenty four hour limit that has to have a sign as well  and finally in the plaintiff also cites in his opening brief section twenty two five zero seven a says to claim that there's a sign should be required and that that's relating to preferential parking permits which there are in his neighborhood or the heights of your goals like trailers or our views or things like that and then it says you have to have a sign but in it but isn't something else correct so it's a default that applies citywide regardless of whether it's residential or commercial so the require the city to post a sign in certain places or in i mean it would just be very burdensome for the city to do that and even the other vehicle code sections cited by plate if regarding the various local ordinances those specifically require a sign for example twenty two five zero seven point six if there's a local ordinance for street sweeps being signs must be posted more than california way about i'm sorry california but that's what i've been saved the all it says is if if the court looks at twenty two six five one subdivision k of the vehicle code ye it just says a car may be removed after if a if us locality has a seventy two hour limit and that's true i have to say right so that's so right the california vehicle code is a statewide law there meant multiple multiple localities have enacted a seventy two hour law so people are presume to know what the law is well when you go the answer to that your honor i haven't looked at the driver's test in a long time i think we get your argument that you have anything else well yeah i have it out and yes i have a confession i got one of those  i was only assigned this case two weeks ago you first of all counsels incorrect about the vehicle code section twenty two six five one k it doesn't fact require signs and that's in two to six five one and we did brief this in our in our brief so i won't go into the detail we also argued it to the state court and the state court agreed with us and as we argue in our brief that should be the law of the case and in fact one example of that is after the lonestar decision of this court the statute was changed to make an exception to the posting requirement for advertising  what lonestar was about with their posting their leaving their trailers with ever ties ng so that is further proof that under state law that is required and it it also makes it makes  sense i know clement and scofield in lone star are cited for the proposition that just leaving a ticket is ok but that's not actually what those cases said in clement the court just noted that we do not prescribe a particular procedure what has to be done is to look at what notice is required under the circumstances that serves the government interest so if we're talking about a time limit that is something people need to know before they parked the car wherever it is and it could vary with it's city wide or it's in a particular block it could be different in one city from another so how do we know that we can only park for fifty six hours in pasadena and yes i was taught in law school how to find the law is that what we're going to require over citizens that where they park they sit in  traffic and look up the municipal code of the city they're in to see if there is anything it's not posted that they should be aware of in fact in response to the question about it is this on the driver's exam yes it is and we put that in our brief that these are among the things that may not be in every test but these are among the things that anyone applying for a driver's license is expected to be tested on and that's the standard for what a reasonable person should know what kind of notice should be given is what would a reasonable person should know of the state law since they're required to know that in order to get a driver's license and at least as to time limits what is actually posted it is not reasonable to expect citizens to know that there is a seventy two hour limit in los angeles a fifty six hour limit in pasadena a twenty two hour limit in santa monica i mean i can make a living i guess going around advising people in each city and look it up have an app for that but that's not due process and that's what we're we're trying to stop is abusive actions by the government and the fact that it is in the neighborhood does make it does make a difference that it is someone could be complaining because they don't like you in some neighborhoods no one gets those tickets because no one complains and and so and there's a fear of someone unknown coming into the neighborhood now that harks back to the days of restrictive covenants we don't want those people in our neighborhood and that scares me that's one of the things that scares me and i want to make sure that that cannot happen anymore thank you thank you