A federal judge found that Los Angeles city officials tampered with evidence to support the city's defense against accusations that it illegally seized and destroyed homeless people's property.
Warning that the city would likely face sanctions following a forensic examination, U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer wrote in an order that the city had not only “altered, modified and created documents relevant to the plaintiff's claims,” but nor had he legitimately presented documents. required documents.
“Suffice to say, the city's credibility has been significantly damaged,” he wrote.
According to court documents, records documenting what was taken during the cleanups and legal authorization for the seizure were altered or created up to two years after the cleanup occurred and, in some cases, just days before they were turned over to the plaintiffs.
In some records, the word “bulky items” was replaced with “health hazards” or “contaminated,” after Fischer ruled that the city's law prohibiting the seizure of bulky items was unconstitutional.
In a court filing, Shayla R. Myers, a Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation attorney representing the eight plaintiffs, described the changes as so significant that they “rise to the level of fraud on the court.”
“In our view, it's not just about tampering with or creating evidence, it's about misleading the court and the public that safeguards exist to ensure that the city does not illegally dispose of homeless people's belongings,” Myers said in an interview. .
“They argue that they have processes to ensure that they are not violating the rights of homeless people. … And those are the same documents that the court considered altered or fabricated.”
A spokesman for the Los Angeles city attorney declined to answer The Times' questions about the case, saying the office does not comment on pending litigation.
The plaintiffs, seven homeless people and the group Ktown for All, allege that the city violated their rights by destroying their belongings in encampment cleanups in 2018 and 2019. Among the items taken, they allege, were tents, chairs , work supplies, a laptop computer, a chest with clothing and hygiene items, a kennel, medications and personal identification.
The five-year-old lawsuit alleges that the city's practice of seizing and disposing of property violates the 4th Amendment's protection against unlawful searches and seizures and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process.
It describes that property used by lead plaintiff Janet Garcia for her work as a domestic cleaner was confiscated and destroyed when she was not present. Other plaintiffs were not given time to collect their personal items before they were seized, she alleges.
Ktown for All, a group that advocates for and helps the homeless, was harmed by having to spend resources to replace seized items, it alleges.
The plaintiffs seek compensation for destroyed property and pain and suffering, as well as a declaration that the city's policies and practices violate the California and United States constitutions.
Early in the case, Fischer issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the municipal code prohibiting bulky items. Because of that ruling, the plaintiffs would have essentially already won their case involving any property seized under the bulky items law, but would have retained a defense for items taken under a health standard, Myers said.
Fischer later charged the city with contempt after the plaintiff's attorney presented evidence that city workers continued to post signs in some locations prohibiting bulky items.
The case has since dragged on due to disputes over the accuracy of city records.
According to court documents, the city responded to the discovery request by converting printouts of the original Microsoft Word documents into PDF files. The process removed date stamps that recorded when the originals were created and last modified.
When the original of one of those records was attached to an email the plaintiffs obtained in discovery, Myers discovered that it had been extensively reviewed before conversion to PDF.
After Myers presented evidence of the altered documents at a 2022 hearing, Fisher took the unusual step of appointing a neutral, third-party forensic examiner to determine whether the city had “stripped” records, a legal term meaning to intentionally or deliberately alter or destroy. negligently.
The examiner's preliminary report said he obtained some of the original documents but was unable to obtain others. By manually comparing the originals with the PDF files, Myers' team found more than 100 revisions in some documents. Among them, bulky was changed to “ADA violation,” a reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and “Property abandoned by the camp” was changed to “Contaminated items given or left by resident.”
In February, Fischer issued a ruling that the city had altered records and sharply rebuked the city's arguments that the revisions were insignificant.
“The City's argument that material changes to documents such as the reason for the seizure and destruction of personal property (sometimes to match the City's position in litigation) are 'administrative' is also unsustainable,” he wrote.
“The City's conduct cannot be excused as 'imperfect document management'; …your 'explanation' for the admitted plunder is unconvincing, to say the least.”
In a follow-up order dated April 1, he found that “the full extent of the city's looting has not yet been determined” and set a deadline of April 8 for the city to turn over all relevant documents to the forensic examiner.
“No delay on the part of the city will be tolerated,” he wrote.
Fischer said he would consider any relevant records the city does not produce “spoliated.”
The city provided a Google drive, which is being evaluated, but there are no additional documents, Myers said.
Myers said he has not determined what sanctions to propose and will do so after the forensic examination is completed, in a month or two.
A trial has not yet been set, suspended due to the forensic examination.
“This case would have been resolved years ago if not for the need for the court to investigate the city's conduct, delaying a public analysis of the legality of these raids,” Myers said.
