Court Opinion

ID: 9784778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:53:41.174401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:59.050828
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Judge,
(concurring in the result):
1 21 Because it was the Iwasaki order that gave Jones a due process property interest in the firearms, it was incumbent upon Jones to timely give the city notice of the order's existence. He made no effort to do so until long after the firearms had been destroyed pursuant to city policy. Jones is therefore in no position to assert any claim to the firearms.
«[ 22 A brief review of the time line helps to explain why, as a matter of law, the city cannot be held responsible for Jones's claim. In March 1997, Jones was arrested and the firearms were seized. In August 1997, Jones pleaded guilty and in October 1997, he obtained the Iwasaki order. Jones concedes that the city first received notice of the existence of the Iwasaki order in December 1998. The city, however, had destroyed the firearms many months earliee-in February 1998. In view of Jones's failure to timely apprise the city of his property interest, the claims he asserts fail as a matter of law.
[ 23 I therefore concur in the result of the lead opinion, which affirms summary judgment. ,