Thread by @2Aupdates

NYPD: "No one hates guns and gun owners more than us!"

LAPD: "Hold my beer"

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1333810665635635203

I see LAPD went with the "maybe he'll eventually go away" strategy before destroying the guns

Apparently LAPD argued that since they already provided notice when the guns were seized, they didn't need to provide notice nine years later when they asked a court for permission to destroy them.

"The wealth of precedent suggests that by failing to provide Wright with notice and the opportunity to be heard before the court issued the destruction order, Edwards denied Wright the most basic and fundamental guarantees of due process."

"Defendants’ claim that the statute applies 'even when the firearms were not filed as exhibits' is unpersuasive. The case they cite, People v. Lamonte, stands for no such thing."

"Instead of adhering to these instructions, however, Defendants turned to a different venue altogether—the Los Angeles Court—and sought the ex parte destruction order."

"[Defendants] partially litigated Wright’s ownership claims in one adjudicatory proceeding... while depriving him of his due process rights in another... all the while pointing to state law to argue that destruction of the firearms was their only choice."

"Edwards’s ex parte application for permission to destroy Wright’s firearms contained statements that a rational trier of fact could find were misrepresentations."

"Thus, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Wright, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Edwards violated Wright’s due process rights."

"We thus conclude that the due process right to notice, as alleged by Wright, was clearly established and, as a result, Edwards is not entitled to qualified immunity."

"Defendants also urge us to affirm on alternative grounds. We reject each argument in turn."

"Defendants appear to suggest that they are entitled to immunity under this theory because they complied with a court order to destroy the firearms."

"Defendants are wrong for several reasons, but the most important one is they overstate the LAPD’s power to decide Wright’s ownership claims."

"AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. Appellant shall recover his costs on appeal."