Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

In an earlier order, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce a preliminary injunction concerning their Fourth Amendment claims. The court concluded that Department of Public Works employees needed additional training to ensure compliance with the injunction’s “bag and tag” policy. That policy governs when personal items may be removed from public property for temporary storage and retrieval, and requires collected property to be bagged, tagged, and taken to the Public Works Operations Yard for storage.

The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the content, frequency, and documentation of future training. The parties reported that they had agreed on most training components but remained at an impasse over training about pre-removal notices and the limits of personal property.

Court’s ruling

The court required the training to explain the policy’s pre-removal-notice requirement. The policy states that written notice must be provided 72 hours before pre-planned encampment resolutions and 24 hours before regular encampment cleanings. Because the policy uses mandatory language, the court held that the notice is required before Department of Public Works employees remove personal property during those activities. Training therefore must explain what constitutes appropriate notice, how employees should confirm that notice was provided, and what they should do if the notice requirement was not met.

The parties agreed that the policy sets no limit on the amount of property that may be bagged and tagged. The court directed them to revise the proposed training order to make that point clear.

The opinion excerpt ends during discussion of the plaintiffs’ request concerning limits on attended personal property. The court stated that the bag-and-tag policy does not address that specific issue, that the plaintiffs had not raised it in their motion to enforce, and that the parties had not had an opportunity to brief it. The court directed the parties to submit a revised proposed order reflecting its instructions by September 3, 2024.

Effect and classification

This was an order about enforcing and implementing a preliminary injunction through employee training. It did not decide the underlying Fourth Amendment claims in this order.