Priest Speaks Out and Gets Kicked Out

[Jackalope]

I'm not sure in what sense your meaning property, but I'm assuming you mean items that they own such as the tents being destroyed. They made the 'choice' (I know they had no where else to go, but taking a legal standpoint) to loiter or trespass (whichever they're being convicted of) on the property which they placed their tents on. Thus, they lost their right to their property by imposing on someone else's.

I don't buy the logic here, and if there's precedent in case law that overrides 4th Amendment protections, I'd love to see a reference.

For sake of argument, let's assume that the lot in question is public property (i.e. owned by the city, which I believe is the case here). So what you're saying is that another party who causes his personally owned possessions to be located upon the city's real property unlawfully then summarily forfeits all right to said personal property?

Using that same logic, it would seem perfectly legal for the city to summarily crush unlawfully parked cars without so much as a hearing, should they be insane enough to want to do so.

Impounding personal property pending a hearing to determine the disposition of said property is what's supposed to happen for government to lawfully deprive someone of their personal property.