public areas the nd is the nature of the process the city has to offer if it's going to do that well this in people isn't about as the city's ability to destroy all the items that are stored in its public areas function of the district court should have but did not amendment which is which was plain as burden to prove here the sr court concluded that it does but only after loving the function of seizing the items with the function of destroying them if you consider soley the function of seizing the items it's difficult to see how it's not a parroted magic example of the city performing its community caretaking option it is removing an item that tends to be obstructive by virtue of its size or so the city council could conclude from the public right of way that is couch and a jacuzzi that if this were severed you would be able you ought to be able to remove without violating the constitution and that's why and you didn't as a line challenge so what i'd like to know is you know other than the big couch and that you cousy what are the types of things that if there were an as applied challenge you could in your year remove under subsection i but are many many many sorts of items on the sidewalks of los angeles that are larger than would fit in a sixty gallon been with the lid closed many there are chairs there is a  you know giant couch giant jacuzzi certainly we ought to be able to remove those without getting a warrant or anything else even if it didn't meet any of the other things  the statute the other types of things could be i mean what would be the need to remove them without giving some type of notice as the plaintiff's  r why would that not violate the constitution i'm looking for your examples of things where no we absolutely need this section and no notice i mean i permit at least thirty six inches of passage on the sidewalk the city and i think is well within its rights to say we don't want to just allow thirty six inches of passage on a sidewalk for example we want a lot more space because we want sidewalks to be used for other things and probably storage in that situation you could say just as well as with the a b a example we're going to remove these things mediately you'll do it with other items that do not reduce the passable space to thirty six inches but do novelized the space don't come back to the can do that you could hear the couch but it's certainly possible that those things could be on a sidewalk where there are still thirty six inches of passage but feet and feet of space would otherwise be available that are being monopolize and don't think the city should be required to go to the least common denominator in terms of what it can and cannot allow on its own sidewalks what kind of passage it needs to preserve so to the extent you might say we want to move this quickly because it's we're going to remove a car let's say there's a four lane road and there's a car parked in the rightmost lane during rush hour you might say well cars can go around it there's another lane there but i don't think road and again what we're looking at here is a facial challenge so i mean granted some of these hypotheticals i mean might there be a count you know right mostly in the road maybe maybe not i don't think it's not farfetched but it's certainly reasonable to assume that there could be this not covered by any of the other sections i'm not sure that it would be because again there's a passable lane on the road this is the same difference between saying wait a minute this is this is appears as if you're saying the a portion of you are an insufficient to  convenience and it's certainly inconvenient to have a majority of a public area monopolized by a large piece of property that has allowed this kind of a removal that you're proposing based solely on convenience but if it were now talking about whether there has to be notice in every instance before an item is removed there are as far as due process question goes there are probably some instances where it would be required and some instances where would it be i think the question is what was the point  giving notice so the example we gave there seems to be little point to putting notice on a canoe the canoe doesn't belong in a sidewalk before one removes it from the sidewalk you know there may be more a point to giving someone notice several in order to assure an in charge that the district court would have had to look at those kinds of issues or the injunction cards that were in unconstitutional as opposed to every possible application just judgement and i think that's and that there were more findings that needed to be made that would have the authority to send this back to the district court to make those kind of findings without disturbing the injunction in the interim yes i would here the rationale for stretches that are it's a real problem for the city i said now be entered into marble time so that the panel and allow ms miers to proceed as you thank you when he was stopped by a sanitation workers and law enforcement officers who told him of the homemade car attached to his bicycle was a bulky i know and he had to turn it over to them importantly the item that he was carrying his cart wasn't blocking  sidewalk he was moving out of the area he wasn't even placed on the sidewalk and yet the officers told him that he had to turn it over he was given no notice no opportunity to contest the determination that his card was bulky even though he issue in the case quite literally allows law enforcement officers and sanitation workers under threat of arrest to take away people's tempests their carts their bins their bicycles and countless other personal items unhoused people used to survive on the streets mr ashley and other on house residents have lost property as a result of a foresman of the bulky item provision before or even because no notice has ever been given no opportunity to contest the seizure of property before even after the property has taken this is true regardless of whether the property was just roid or if the items are simply removed as the city advocates should occur in this case and has residents who are subject to don't provision or afforded none of the constitutional protections guaranteed by the th and the th amendment because the law it is you here simply does not account for any of these protections and this is why the district court in this case issued an extremely narrow injunction and i think that's important for the courts to recognize is this ordinance enjoined only the bulky item provision and the corresponding arresting provision it does not include the sixteen other provisions of los angeles municipal code five thousand six hundred and eleven including the provisions that allow the city to address media threats to public health and safety property that interferes with city operations so for example the couch that was rising and discussed that would would be covered would be covered by the city operations and then just record a dress that specific point the city raised the question about the latter a letter that was simply blocking the sidewalk and made it difficult for people to to go to to take the bus to school and he said he said and the court said yes under the provisions that were still available the city could still use that but importantly the bookie i don't provision provides no notice or opportunity to contest the about here are the issues for which the bulky i don't provision is determinative and that's the question for purposes of official challenges where the facts are and issues determines him those are those instances where the city has provided no justification challenge certainly before any item in the and the reason for that is simple the bookie i am provision and fifty six the lemon does not apply to any item it's getting out there on the sidewalk this doesn't apply to the items that are illegally dumbs this doesn't apply to the items that we see as we're walking down the street and we see items piled up after they've been discarded from apartment buildings if you think the eleven doesn't cover that property all they cover it does it does cover bulky items that aren't stopping someone to absolutely from walking on the sidewalk but doesn't constitute an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public instance that we could look at there would be no seizure without notice allowed without exception well no your honor because there are numerous provisions that allow they are under this under this provision and that wouldn't be covered anywhere else that only under this provision should ever every single one would be unconstitutional where yes that is clear the court but but the supreme court and this court have been clear that where property is seized from an individual because the reality is that what we're talking about are items that belong to someone again these are not abandoned this is not abandoned property is not a legally dumbs property this is this is property that this city has a reasonable understanding belongs to someone then yes your honor due process would require by any other section of this let's say the jacuzzi was on the grass next to the sidewalk so that that in your view some well your honor and i think i think patel is clear on this point as well is that when the process when property is being seized pursuant to something other than a line of force man and category there's some level of process there could be sufficient absent a warrant so in patel it's an administrative search that's goes out a very different type of procedure that's available as the peano or something else and that gets to this quite this issue of the th and th amendment being co extensive and while they are separate rights it's the question of process that's ultimately at issue here and our concern is that five thousand six hundred and eleven dollars bulky items provision provides no process whatsoever it provides no check on the city's authority to determine take as drafted to throw away but otherwise remove property so counsel if i go ask you the same question i asked you're from if we were to determine that this ways and then we would not object to that either but i think you i think you hit on exactly the right point is that the injunction we need to remain in place given the interests that are at  sitting on the ground and law enforcement simply walk up to that to cousy saw it and took it away didn't provide any notice in advance or opportunity to cure didn't provide any notice after the fact didn't provide any way to get it back i don't think that we would struggle in the same way today that due process would attach what we're asking for here ok so i think i would probably agree with you with regard to the post seizure notice but i'm not sure i would agree with you with regard to you've got a jacuzzi on a sidewalk even if it's and i don't know what richard has a valet are even if it's in l a or wherever it is i don't i don't know that there would be noticed required to have seized the jacuzzi off the sidewalk in the st place but i agree with you on the possibility of course seizure notice and your honor i think also when we consider what's at stake and which is the proper analysis for purposes of determining how much process is due the court has to look at what are the and which patients for the deprivation of that property  person owns belongings and they are on housed and those that property is taken to a storage facility without notice or an opportunity to contest the determination the city itself has conceded and put forth evidence that they understand that that is the functional equivalent of a permanent deprivation because they understand that on house people don't have the transportation available to go across town to retrieve their belongings so the not doctor and does not give the city the exception to the one requirement that they need it to you know order for this to survive one of the main reasons though that the beyond exigency that the community care taking function does not save the bulky provision is that where courts have allowed the seizure of property pursuant to community care taking it also has to be done that consistent with standards that spell out the factors that are relevant in reasonable and what isn't are you saying that to exercise the community your taking function either in a circumstance where you're just sure of immediate threat to health or safety the police couldn't do that because the standards aren't in the statute no your honor but where the city is relying on the on the community security being statue or on the community here taking exception to render a seizure opinion you have a case there where the officers are in someone's house they're taking guns away from a person who is not there anymore and in fact another person is claiming ownership of the guns so to say in that case there is an immediate need to remove them for safety is one thing but i don't think if you look at cases you know the my one of cases involving cars and doing this you wouldn't say wait a minute is there an immediate need to do this for safety reasons that i was saying earlier there it's difficult to say that there's something special about a car that would apply equally to for example a canoe and not policing samples out of nowhere this is something that was in fact on the street in los angeles so it's difficult for me to see