for more of your made please the court this case is about a policy that the city of chicago applies to arrest the property the primary issue involves the taking clause of the th amendment as suggested by the concurring opinion in lee st the city of chicago the appellee city of chicago argues that its police powers allow says sell or destroy the cheney property is there mr flaxman can i use your question you would agree that the police powers allow the city to take the property right absolutely ok what are they supposed to do with it what are they supposed to do it i mean don't they have an end celery police power here to do it to to return or to destroy the property like i think about this in terms of much of this property has some value to the inmates some of the property does not let me give you an example a police report says a witness identifies a shooter wearing a blue coat ok or or some object that it is an inmate is th arrested wearing seen plenty of instances where the inmate will later claim that's not my property and i don't want it back and once the police says it has no evidentiary value what is the city supposed to do with it city should do is to follow eleanore law which requires the local police not to had to send all of the rest his property that is not contraband that is not khurshid is what the city should do is follow illinois law and that seems to be a theme of your brief you contend that the city of chicago is not complying with illinois law so why are you making a constitutional argument in federal court rather than making your state law argument in state court well there are two reasons you answers to that your honor the st is that the state courts recognize the only toured immunity statute as a complete abandoned in a way that you think was inappropriate not in accordance with their actual intentions etc etc so they their property was destroyed do they have a remedy in the illinois claims court no the only claims court is actions against the state of illinois here the property was destroyed by the city of chicago which has to be sued in state court when the city will figure asli assert its absolute immunity from paying damages in this kind of case ok so that is the essence of your complaint there's there's some of this in your brief that maybe it's not that you're saying is it just the thirty days is too short you know for due process purposes or or whatever and they should be like new york and you have one hundred and twenty days or some other length of time in new york it's one hundred and twenty days after the criminal case is done in chicago it's thirty days after  position is that's an arbitrary and irrational presumption and that they're not entitled to make that getting back to judge each direct question about the state law the basic principle that we were lying on is that state law determines property rights and federal law determines the process that is due before that property is destroyed or sold or taken by the state or state actors and what what is your strongest for it for the proposition that the constitution prohibits a claim period as short as thirty days and i quote it or not i hope you're not saying that the thirty days allowed to file a notice of appeal from an adverse decision in state court is on constitutionally short term prisoners may have trouble meeting that deadline but in fact they do it why is this thirty day deadline any more up when we know that your in the county jail you can't come yourself to get it and many people can't afford to hire if you lose this case in district court you're still in the cook county jail we have plenty of prisoners state and federal far no notice of appeal within thirty days i'm trying to figure out why in your view thirty days is true short to file a claim now you can answer that to some case so holding your brief dust or with some original argument that would distinguish claims to property from the sort of claim made in a notice  amendment the th amendment talks about the rights of the people to be secure in their person here is no there is no question being raised in these cases about whether the property was seized on probable cause the question has to do with its disposition and that is within the scope of the th amendment if you're going to quarrel with my question and not answer it that's within europe prayer but i personally suggest that you answer my question rather than try to government from taking property without you compensation it as the concurring opinion process of law is what it says there is and i've lost track of what your yes i know because you were quibbling instead of dealing with the question i asked why is thirty days too short and i said there were two ways you could address that question one is you could dispositive authority saying that it's true the other issue could make an original argument about why a thirty days is too short and if you were going to make such an argument i said i would like you to deal with the question why it therefore isn't also too short to file a notice of appeal i was trying to answer that question poorly obviously by spite trying to point out that there's a difference between filing a notice of appeal and reclaiming property that is being held that you're unable to maintain possession of while you're in the cook county jail this thirty day period our position is that there is no period that the city can say we will keep or sell your property if you don't pick it up within x amount of time while you're still in jail the city you say may not hold that property and the city may not destroy that property yes you can name where you should send it they should send it to the sheriff of cook county in accordance with the accepted in ordinary procedures as you know you're now back to state law and i thought you've already agreed you're not making a claim under state law so i thought at one point you had been saying and the district court seems to have thought this too that the problem with thirty days for property just position unlike very sober thirty day period since the in the law is that the way this system is operated it's insufficient notice to the inmate and doesn't give them we'd like if you told them forty eight hours before that they were going to have their property destroyed it was going to be regarded as abandoned we might say that that was just too short you know if you give somebody notice that they're going to have an injunction proceeding against them and you only give them twenty four hours notice we might say that's truthful so i thought that you have been arguing from a th amendment due process point of view that the thirty days is too short and i also thought that you were arguing for the th amendment takings point of view i'm not sure what you're saying whether there's no public purpose one could disagree with you about that but there's no public purpose or whether you're saying that there can't be abandonment under this circumstance i don't know but there are some arguments that seem to belong in your procedural due process packet and some arguments that seem to belong in your taking to say if you don't come and get your property while you're locked up at the jail we will destroy a little cell or destroy your property but this many just allow a representative i take the point that the detainee isn't going to go over to the police department and show up at this desk but the city permits a representative but not everybody is able to find a representative or an employer representative to go to the city and retrieve the cell phone which might have g cheney but not enough value for somebody to go from peoria to the cook county jail or that evidence recovered property section to retrieve the property our position is that there is no curried of well if we don't destroy the property we're going to run out of room to store everything that argument wasn't raised in the district court if it had been raised we would have been able to show i think that the city has ample space to store this material and that it could simply send it along to the sheriff and say we're not going to store it you store but there's not there's no that to say that we are no accident my question was just a little was a little bit different because i  guess i want to make sure that your theory is not that the city or the sheriff or somebody should store this property indefinitely to the end of the world which is what point in the city or the sheriff say the property is abandoned or we can get to five years ten years and how do we determine that the city says under its abandonment management statute it's very clear when they consider the property abandoned and what they can do it by doing that that it but the what we're saying is that there's no time while the criminal case is pending when the person stops me can see cheney the city and the sheriff are free to set what they find to be a reasonable time to let people pick their stuff up whereas if there's your difference of somebody makes bond or doesn't make bond and then who keeps track of that if they make bond they could come and retrieve their property if they're walk up awaiting trial they can't come and get their property a mr flint was locked up i think for five or six months before his criminal case for be resolved in his favor and it was too late for him to go get his cell phones that's that's what we're saying is that there's no time period that's reasonable bol you being the change awaiting trial everybody doesn't have an agent or a family member who can go pick up their stuff and  position i hope i've answered the questions but i suspect i'm i'm not sure at this point that i understand your position because your initial answer to judge carer's that what you wanted the city to do is follow state law and you were saying that state law provides one hundred and twenty dollars days rather than thirty but what you are now saying is that the constitution in total or requires the city to be a uncompensated bailey of property for as long as the owner is in prison which of course could be fifty years not in prison your honor being held as a pretrial d flaxman after somebody is sent to prison he can't come and pick the property up that's a different situation and we're not advocating for the rights of people in a pit penitentiary servant natural life to death and we have to hold  and i don't i'm i'm no more suitable what the constitutional principle if the deadline has to be keyed to when the owner can come and pick up the property in perth that's not the period of pre is a pretrial detainee the city may not sell or destroy his or her property when the person ceases to be a pretrial detainee it might be released on bail or by successful trauma nation of the criminal case of a think it's very law is that a constitutional line when it does not mark the difference between being able to pick it up in person and not if you think it's part of the and that evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find in their favor because the evidence which was understood showed that the city's policy was to provide rescues with notice and it's pursued yours to claim their store property often let me just make sure i understand at least the city's position on this it's a really interesting case in that the city is saying that for non property non monetary property these instructions on the website of the chicago police department are adequate to provide notice and they're actually you know i've looked at them they're quite detailed i don't think there's anything wrong with them and the the fact that inmates pretrial detainee type inmates may not have immediate internet access isn't important because these c r w's whatever they are the social workers of some type can serve as intermediaries so somebody can say what you see if i have some property and they go to the c r w somehow and the city kind of pats itself in the back that it gets three quarters of the cases right and they only destroy things wrongly a quarter of the time but but it's this notion of the intermediated access that i think is interesting here that it's enough if the city allows some intermediary to tell the person what to do is that right your honor that is what the evidence shows that these intermediaries do assist inmates and cook county regularly  retrieving property but i do know if they get their property back today they actually physically write down you know send it to my mother at this address or or something because they are the mother has to come physically to the police station  unit let me let me make a couple of points about that i st want to clarify what they're required to do to claim the property because i think that that hasn't been discussed to this point they don't have to show up within thirty days or send a does it doesn't meet with them thirty days they just have to make contact with c b d that's what that at the website says and also the notice of their paper form that they're given says contacts with them thirty days and so  this is actually a very different system you're describing a system in which things begin by thirty days as opposed to things are completed by thirty day right and i think the record i procedures the challenge was not that those procedures themselves were inadequate for a particular reason such as the thirty day issue that counsel is discussing today so our position is that that type of claim is weighed because it was not the claim alleged in the th and then the complaint and it was not the claim presented to the district court it's not what the party split again had for seven years so we didn't we don't have a record be abandoned and i hope after some call would do that yes there was one distinction let me turn your attention for a nd from the notice from what i think was the due process aspect of this case to the taking s aspect which i don't think was developed as well as it should have been but i was disturbed by the city's seeming position that as long as you said we seized this property pursuant to our police power not pursuant to the  th amendment that's a free pass for everything which it surely is not sitting it's the substance that matters did the city take the property and perhaps public use is just what judge curst was talking about they can't be the storage bin of all time and so the public use might be just wise use of city resources having a regular abandonment policy but you can't really be saying that as long as you call it the police power you're outside of the takings clause right your honor i just want to clear i don't like what i want to actually want to clarify we can't just say it's police power and get out of our constitutional obligation they took your cell phone in your i pad and whatever else you happen to have around away and i said well this is pursuant to the police power you haven't been responsible user of these devices you would say no you know you've taken my property and let's have a proceeding to see if this was a valid taking or not because i compensated with their public use you know the usual stuff so i just think these are two separate lines of analysis and as i understand the plaintiffs although they got sort of caught in the switches between williamson and nick and other things i understand the plaintiffs to be saying that the city just took their property and didn't and didn't provide a pathway to compensate them for it the front yard and you know just minding your own business and a police officer comes and takes your i pad away from you i don't want to get messed up with whether there's a search or it's a warrant at the th amendment you can't  mean that there's no way that could be regarded as a potential taking just because it's a police officer who took it your honor i think i would sue under the th amendment in that block is a derelict building owned by smith and the city thinks point really tired scarily building being there so they send in some machinery and they demolish the building and they put grass down they create a park and then the person wants compensation for the value of the land the city surely can't say we think that that derelict building was a public safety hazard and therefore we've just fixed the public safety  hazard and we don't have to compensate you for your land surely the city has to settle up on the value of the land they took to create a public park yes that's a classic use of the power of exactly and i'm saying just because they are waving their hands around and talking about police power and safety doesn't exempt them from the takings clause of the th amendment no it's not and it's not an exemption but i do know what what we're  say oh i would approach is under the th man i'm just trying to say there are many situations where you can look at things through a couple of different lenses yes there are there are the perp the most the best for the situation here is the due process let's take in this doctrine doesn't help us understand whether the disposition of this property it was done pursuant to know that what it does do though is unlike the due process approach which is just at city jump through the right hoops if in the end the city took someone's property and it does not offer any avenue for compensation for the property that was taken you might have a th amendment problem because property that's taken if it's again you know subject to all of the parts public use etc under the th amendment needs to be done and i thought that the plaintiffs were saying that this presumption of abandonment in the face of people making efforts kind of standing off on the side jumping up and down and shouting i'm not abandoning anything is troublesome and whether it fits within a legal box is one of the things we're here to decide if the presumption of abandonment is something that fits within the due process box and the case in fact that plaintiffs rely on for this discussion what is it due process point instead of something else if you know if i could put my phone down at a restaurant and i'd leave it accidentally because i wasn't thinking you know i suppose they could say i abandon it even if i call them thirty minutes later and say i think i left my phone there but but you could have a hair trigger on abandonment the would be when i think of abandonment i think of things like adverse  seven years i think of things that are lengthy enough to justify an inference that the person really doesn't want the property anymore this is abandonment pursuant to the terms of our ordinary sense which sets out that process question and if you look at his like this which they cite in support of a takings claim although it's a due process case the question is was there a fair opportunity to challenge the government's opportunity to challenge the government's decision that's a due process issue and here so what they appear to argue for the st time on appeal is that there wasn't a fair opportunity to challenge the conclusion of abandonment of the property and that even if not waived even if relevant to taking is simply an incorrect characterization of our ordinance because there is an opportunity to challenge the conclusion that you abandon the property and you do that by calling c p t or otherwise contacting d to tell them that you are claiming your property therefore it is again i we submit this is not relevant to taking steroids prudence and theirs and also that there's no need to extend taking he says that new york is one hundred and eighty days i don't disagree with that i don't think not always agree with that because you've researched it and found that it's true or because you haven't looked into it we had it actually  our trial attorneys had an expert report prepared in its it was submitted in that are fifty six point one statement exhibits and that person who is a police practices specialist noted that  york's this is actually from our evidence that new york has a policy of six months portland to sixty days i don't know that there were other jurisdictions that he mentioned but that's i think that's where that's coming from and so no we  will be a perpetual uncompensated bayley of heaps of property well the alternative is to be a bailey with compensation to charge a monthly fee for holding on to these things whether or not the city has done the real work of finding out how other jurisdictions do this you don't know how they did know i only know that the justice this couple of jurisdictions mentioned in acts or expert report they weren't that wasn't relevant to plaintiffs to process claims and so it hasn't been explored a great detail and because this is a claim about notice what does what does worry me about your proposition putting putting to one side all of this about the police power is that one of the city's themes is we do it this way because we have to or we will be overwhelmed but if there are other ways to do it without being overwhelmed that doesn't turn out to be a very