1 / 9

Defending the indefensible (or “One Strike evictions”) EAH v. Tokimia C.

Defending the indefensible (or “One Strike evictions”) EAH v. Tokimia C. Bay Area Legal Aid · Contra Costa Regional Office 1025 MacDonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801. “Prison is the only form of public housing that the government has truly invested in over the past five decades.”

melindamanuel
Télécharger la présentation

Defending the indefensible (or “One Strike evictions”) EAH v. Tokimia C.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Defending the indefensible (or “One Strike evictions”)EAH v. Tokimia C. Bay Area Legal Aid · Contra Costa Regional Office 1025 MacDonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801

  2. “Prison is the only form of public housing that the government has truly invested in over the past five decades.” @marclamonthill

  3. HUD v. Rucker • “Federally Subsidized” or Public Housing tenancies can be terminated “if any member of the tenant's household or any guest” were engaged in drug related or other criminal activity occurring on the premises. 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (1)(6), etc. • Whether or not the tenant had any knowledge or could have prevented the activity

  4. The Incident – March 25, 2014 • Shooting at Crescent Park Apartments, Richmond, CA while my client was at work • My client’s 17 y.o. son Te’Ari implicated by onsite security and arrested. • Te’Ari confessed and pled to gun charge before trial and never returned to the household; • Experiencing psychosis, suicidal… receiving treatment for severe mental health related disabilities

  5. The Notice – April 1, 2014 • “Permitting unlawful Activities” • Summary of incident… • “You may discuss this notice with the landlord” • Violent/Threatening criminal activity CAN be excluded from grievance/review process… often is not.

  6. The Trial – September 8, 2014 • Pre-trial negotiations failed and client couldn’t/wouldn’t move • Strong procedural defense, but couldn’t rebut shooting allegations • RPD Detectives played tape of shooting and acknowledged on cross that Tokimia had no knowledge or involvement • My client testified that she had no knowledge of incident; • LOST. My client “not credible” • Set stage for post trial Relief from forfeiture, based on disabilities, removal from household.

  7. Post Trial • Evidence of Te’Ari’s extraordinary disabilities, removal from household, effect on remaining household, etc. • Court denied motion… Tokimia “well aware of the rules and the need to not allow illegal conduct in her home”. • Stayed through 12/31/14 and evicted mid January 2015

  8. Take Away • Collaboration with Public Defender • Over-reliance on technical defense (?) • Evidentiary objections (the video) • Property owners and management defer to law enforcement • Courts defer to law enforcement and hesitant to use discretion – “heater” case • HUD Guidance around “one strike” – HUD 2015-19

  9. Adam Poe Staff Attorney, Reentry Project Coordinator apoe@baylegal.org

More Related