Earlier this month, a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement in a lawsuit brought by nine homeless residents in Fresno.
The homeless said the city destroyed their personal property without giving them a chance to reclaim the items. The settlement likely brings an end to the lawsuit, which dates to October 2006. Here are questions and answers related to the issue:
Question: Why was the city conducting sweeps of homeless encampments?
Answer: For years, the city has been clearing or cleaning up illegal homeless encampments. Officials said the homeless cannot camp on property -- either private or public -- without permission. Many of the controversial sweeps came on California Department of Transportation property along Highway 99 near Santa Clara and E streets. Residents in that area complained of drug deals, fights, and homeless residents defecating in public. The city maintained it gave notice that the sweeps were coming.
Why did the homeless file suit?
Homeless residents said the sweeps were done with little or no notice and without giving anyone a chance to retrieve medicine, valuables and personal belongings such as photographs and birth certificates, even though the U.S. Constitution prohibits the seizure of property. They contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which asked Fresno to stop destroying the property. When the city didn't, the ACLU in October 2006 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of nine homeless residents.
What legal steps were taken after the lawsuit was filed?
Two days later, U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger issued an order that stopped the city from destroying property when it raided homeless encampments. He later issued a more permanent order, known as a preliminary injunction. Last month, he ruled in favor of the homeless residents on most issues in the case.
Why did Wanger side with the homeless?
He found that Fresno violated homeless residents' Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, and their 14th Amendment rights to due process, when it immediately destroyed belongings during sweeps if the homeless owners were not present.
What about homeless residents other than the nine plaintiffs?
In July 2007, Wanger granted class-action status to the case, meaning other homeless who had items taken and destroyed -- and not just the original nine plaintiffs -- would benefit from a legal victory.
How did the case end?
After Wanger's May ruling, both sides negotiated a settlement before it could go to trial to determine damages. Neither Wanger nor any other court officials participated in the negotiations.
What were the settlement details?
Fresno agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle the lawsuit. Caltrans will pay $85,000. Under the tentative agreement, some money will go into a cash fund that will go directly to homeless residents. Other money will go into a "living allowance fund," which will distribute money to third parties for living expenses such as rent and utilities.
Who is paying what?
Fresno will contribute $400,000 to the cash fund, with Caltrans putting in $85,000. Fresno will put $1 million in the living allowance fund. The city also will pay $750,000 in legal fees and an additional $100,000 in legal costs associated with the case.
Are the legal fees excessive?
That's impossible to say. The fees are based on billable hours of the attorneys in the case. But Paul Alexander, a private attorney who was the lead counsel for the homeless, said he and the two firms he worked for put in thousands of hours of work on the case -- and billed for none of it. The attorneys for the plaintiffs could have asked for three times as much in legal fees, he said. The money is being split between the ACLU and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, whose attorneys also represented the plaintiffs.
How much did it cost Fresno to defend the lawsuit?
Private counsel James Betts -- who was retained by Fresno to defend the city -- has been paid $150,000. The city also has staff attorneys who worked on the lawsuit and spent time in court hearings.
Why did Wanger call the city and Mayor Alan Autry into court Tuesday?
Wanger ordered a hearing after public comments by Autry criticized the settlement -- even though the city had negotiated it and agreed to its terms. Wanger wanted to make absolutely sure the city was committed to the settlement terms, and could have thrown out the settlement if he found the city wasn't committed. He also wanted Autry to personally explain his comments, especially those critical of the court for the $750,000 in legal fees awarded to the ACLU and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
What happened in court?
An at-times defiant Autry talked about his First Amendment rights to free speech, but said he was committed to the settlement and its terms. The judge allowed the settlement to stand.
What is the city doing now?
After a hiatus while the lawsuit wound its way through court, the city is once again cleaning up homeless encampments. As mandated by the court, the city is holding items seized for 90 days so homeless residents can claim the items. To date, officials say, nobody has claimed any held item.
