Federal judge scrutinizes San Francisco’s collection of homeless residents’ property

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge ruled Monday that San Francisco officials must provide better training for its workers who collect homeless individuals' personal belongings as the city ramps up removals of encampments.

However, U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu denied plaintiffs’ long-standing request for a special master to handle oversight of the city’s removal of encampments.

"This decision marks a crucial step in our ongoing lawsuit against the city, ensuring additional court oversight over the city's actions against people experiencing homelessness," John Do, senior staff attorney at ACLU Norcal representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement Monday.

The suit was brought against San Francisco by a group of current and formerly homeless residents and the nonprofit advocacy group Coalition on Homelessness.

It was placed on hold last spring, when the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case Grants Pass v. Johnson. Following the high court’s June decree that cities can enforce anti-camping ordinances as they do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated part of Judge Ryu’s injunction pertaining to such claims.

The panel kept alive Ryu's preliminary injunction relating to the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims, which requires the city to comply with its own "bag and tag" policy. That policy dictates how and when workers may collect and store personal belongings taken from encampments and when property can be destroyed.

In her order Monday, Ryu said that she would grant part of the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction relating to the Fourth Amendment claim. She said that the city did not provide enough information when asked about its policy of taking people's property and how they manage such actions. Furthermore, the city did not show that it properly trained city workers in taking such actions.

Over the last year, plaintiffs submitted more than two dozen declarations from witnesses, including homeless people, saying that city employees have taken and destroyed their personal property during encampment operations even though their belongings are not abandoned, trash nor hazardous materials. And earlier this year, Ryu cited shortcomings in the city’s evidence of how it trains its employees on the bag and tag policy, ordering officials to explain how many employees interact with homeless people and how they’re trained.

The city submitted information about its operations, noting it has 84 employees that cover six “zones” and respond to complaints about streets and sidewalks. A ten-person team manages and stores the property collected during operations sweeping encampments, which is then stored at a city yard.

But the judge on Monday blasted the city’s report, saying its training of city workers on proper care of people’s belongings falls short of the requirements, including ensuring that workers distinguish between unattended personal property and abandoned property.

Ryu also said that supervisors apparently didn’t inform city workers about the substance of her preliminary injunction or the importance of following the bag and tag policy. She called that “troubling” given the evidence that plaintiffs’ property was seized and sometimes destroyed. 

“Defendants’ evidence regarding training on the bag and tag policy raises more questions than answers. The court concludes that additional training of [Department of Public Works] employees is required to ensure defendants follow the preliminary injunction with respect to the bag and tag policy,” Ryu said. 

However, along with denying plaintiffs' request for a special master for oversight, Ryu denied without prejudice their request for regular compliance reports. She said that she could not justify requiring city workers to create and disclose logs describing when and where the property of homeless people is seized and destroyed. 

City officials must meet with the plaintiffs and create a joint proposal regarding future training of employees on the bag and tag policy within two weeks.

"The court acknowledged that San Francisco has taken multiple steps to train its employees on the bag and tag policy, but we are disappointed the court found the amount of training to be inadequate," San Francisco Communications Director Jen Kwart said Monday.

The case is set for a bench trial in May 2025.

San Francisco’s mayor London Breed, who is seeking reelection in November, has demanded for years more leeway to remove encampments across the city. She issued an executive order Thursday directing city workers to offer homeless people trips by bus out of the city before offering any other services such as shelter, citing the fact that city shelters are 94% full. 

San Francisco's press office reported Monday that, since July, workers have talked to 581 people, and 106 of those individuals went into shelters.

Many encampment removals are scheduled through August, largely in the city's downtown metro areas.

There were 2,913 people living on San Francisco’s streets and 1,442 people living in vehicles in January, according to recent counts made annually called Point-in-Time counts.

Follow @nhanson_reports

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit