(December 20, 2011 at 4:11 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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 (should they choose to) 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.
Interesting. Well the law enforcement officers had the right to seize the tents based on the plain view doctrine. Your point about needing to go through a case before deciding the disposition is valid, unless the specific Florida law (which I can't seem to pin point) states otherwise.
Federal Law (constitution) trumps State Law if both are found to be incompatible due to Article VI, however I'm sure the Florida law didn't blatantly contradict or neglect the 4th amendment. Lawyers and law makers have a special ability of rewording things to get what they want in the end.
I'm going to keep looking for what the actual Florida law is in this case, but if you find it before I do, please let me know the link.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
