Cases of misuse of procedural due process

[sfaznpinoy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I am looking for cases in which a plaintiff has been able to argue that a Defendant has used the ready availability of the procedural due process (that is, the administrative hearing) to 'rationalize' the illegal taking (or violation of substantive process).

Here's my situation:
1. I got towed by a municipal agency per a construction company's request.
2. I found out the company was not legally permitted to be on site until the following day.
3. I found out that the agency does NOT independently verify signs or when signs are posted giving free rein to the construction companies.
4. Then once towed, the agency uses the company's hearsay statement that they had signs posted for at least 3 days (which documents show that it is not true).

I'm trying to argue that the agency is 'misusing' the ready availability of the tow hearing in order to 'rationalize' their inability to create a monitoring system AHEAD of the taking of lawfully-parked vehicles (which is, in essence, in violation of people's 4th Amendment rights).

The procedural due process (or tow hearing), from my understanding, is to balance the private and govt interest and to compensate for the "honest mistake" the govt makes in towing vehicles; however, considering the agency does NOT take precaution on minimizing (but actually increases) that error...I'm trying to argue that they created an environment in which they allowed such mistakes to occur and then use a contractor's statement (who benefit from not being properly monitored).

Any suggestion on who I can best search for such cases? I tried "misuse procedural due process", "unjust", "Mathews v. Eldridge unjust"...etc.

Thanks everyone!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I am looking for cases in which a plaintiff has been able to argue that a Defendant has used the ready availability of the procedural due process (that is, the administrative hearing) to 'rationalize' the illegal taking (or violation of substantive process).

Here's my situation:
1. I got towed by a municipal agency per a construction company's request.
2. I found out the company was not legally permitted to be on site until the following day.
3. I found out that the agency does NOT independently verify signs or when signs are posted giving free rein to the construction companies.
4. Then once towed, the agency uses the company's hearsay statement that they had signs posted for at least 3 days (which documents show that it is not true).

I'm trying to argue that the agency is 'misusing' the ready availability of the tow hearing in order to 'rationalize' their inability to create a monitoring system AHEAD of the taking of lawfully-parked vehicles (which is, in essence, in violation of people's 4th Amendment rights).

The procedural due process (or tow hearing), from my understanding, is to balance the private and govt interest and to compensate for the "honest mistake" the govt makes in towing vehicles; however, considering the agency does NOT take precaution on minimizing (but actually increases) that error...I'm trying to argue that they created an environment in which they allowed such mistakes to occur and then use a contractor's statement (who benefit from not being properly monitored).

Any suggestion on who I can best search for such cases? I tried "misuse procedural due process", "unjust", "Mathews v. Eldridge unjust"...etc.

Thanks everyone!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Your goal is to be reimbursed the money that you had to spend due to the (alleged) improper tow, right?

 

[sfaznpinoy]

yes....

I definitely have enough ammunition to win in small claims and get the money from the agency. I believe if they lose and have to pay me....they will get the money from the construction company.

But, considering how the agency is not very well-liked in this city....I was just having some chat with friends in law school and we were thinking how prevalent this practice is....that is, the agency tows even though it knows that they're illegally towing HOPING that since the towing appeal is so cumbersome...not a lot of people will go through the hassle of contesting it.

My denial letter said "based on investigation the location was zoned for construction and the foreman stated they had signs for at least 3 days".

But I got copies of the DPT Construction Zone Tow-Away Permit showing that the effective date is the day later (which they also confirmed to me is the effective date). So basically, they 'lied' and then relied on the foreman's statement.

Friends and I are just thinking how many people are having their 4th amendment rights violated just because the agency knows they can always rely on the availability of the hearing.

Thanks!

 

[Silverplum]

Ahhhh...the truth always outs.

I definitely have enough ammunition to win in small claims and get the money from the agency. I believe if they lose and have to pay me....they will get the money from the construction company.

But, considering how the agency is not very well-liked in this city....I was just having some chat with friends in law school and we were thinking how prevalent this practice is....that is, the agency tows even though it knows that they're illegally towing HOPING that since the towing appeal is so cumbersome...not a lot of people will go through the hassle of contesting it.

My denial letter said "based on investigation the location was zoned for construction and the foreman stated they had signs for at least 3 days".

But I got copies of the DPT Construction Zone Tow-Away Permit showing that the effective date is the day later (which they also confirmed to me is the effective date). So basically, they 'lied' and then relied on the foreman's statement.

Friends and I are just thinking how many people are having their 4th amendment rights violated just because the agency knows they can always rely on the availability of the hearing.

Thanks!

 

[tranquility]

I definitely have enough ammunition to win in small claims and get the money from the agency.

Um...

1. I got towed by a municipal agency per a construction company's request.

You're not going to get any money from a municipal agency in small claims court.

Step one is you must file a claim with the agency. They will deny it. Then you sue in big boy's court. You will have to prove their action was either ministerial or plainly illegal. It is not, based on your own testimony.

Your tortfeasor, if any, is the construction company.

 

[sfaznpinoy]

thanks!

yep yep...went through the hassle......

went to administrative hearing..got denied.
went to filing a claim with the city...got denied (of course, later I found out the reviewer used to work at the same municipal agency claims division!)

getting ready to either file in small claims or superior court (haven't decide yet!)

in the meantime, I did send an informal demand letter to the construction company....lo and behold....3 days later, I received an email from the legal firm representing the parent company saying they're investigating my claim (I did mention that based on the FACTUAL documents provided by the agency, they willingly came in, closed an entire sidewalk, began construction and had lawfully-parked vehicles towed one day prior to when it was legally permitted; in other words, you know that you had citizen's rights violated by having their vehicles unreasonably seized without their consent).

their email letter ended "...in the meantime, can you please provide us a list of your incurred expenses in relation to the towing incident?"


LOL!

So yeah...wish me luck....

 

[Zigner]

yep yep...went through the hassle......

went to administrative hearing..got denied.
went to filing a claim with the city...got denied (of course, later I found out the reviewer used to work at the same municipal agency claims division!)

getting ready to either file in small claims or superior court (haven't decide yet!)

in the meantime, I did send an informal demand letter to the construction company....lo and behold....3 days later, I received an email from the legal firm representing the parent company saying they're investigating my claim (I did mention that based on the FACTUAL documents provided by the agency, they willingly came in, closed an entire sidewalk, began construction and had lawfully-parked vehicles towed one day prior to when it was legally permitted; in other words, you know that you had citizen's rights violated by having their vehicles unreasonably seized without their consent).

their email letter ended "...in the meantime, can you please provide us a list of your incurred expenses in relation to the towing incident?"


LOL!

So yeah...wish me luck....

The POINT is that the government agency is NOT the one you have a beef with.

 

[tranquility]

While you didn't post the statute you were towed under, I will assume it is a ministerial one. One where the government had no thought to the matter. Otherwise you have to deal with qualified immunity and you will not get past summary judgment.

Since the only way to have a chance is if the statute is ministerial, the government made no choice. The government did nothing wrong.

The construction company which made the "request" is the only one you will have a chance getting any money from.

 

[CdwJava]

The key will be what code section the impound was made under.

On the paperwork, under what authority was the vehicle towed? It will likely be something similar to CVC 2265X ...