Quantcast

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Friday, May 17, 2024

Motel owners sue LAPD, say warrantless searches amount to targeted harassment, civil rights violations

Lawsuits
Webp lapd squad

LAPD squad car | Jason Lawrence, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The owners of a Los Angeles motel have sued the city and the police department, claiming that officers have violated their constitutional rights by conducting regular warrantless searches and seizures at the property.

Hitendra Bhakta and Rish Investments filed a lawsuit in federal court against the city of Los Angeles and several unnamed individuals, citing allegations of civil rights violations.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs own and operate a motel in Los Angeles. They claim that the city and its law enforcement officers have continuously conducted warrantless, non-consensual searches of the motel, including the seizure of motel registration records and video footage taken by security cameras. 

The plaintiffs further claim that the city and certain officials have engaged in a campaign to label the motel as a public nuisance, with the ultimate goal of transferring the property to private developers for redevelopment or other purposes. They claim that these actions are tied to corrupt dealings between city officials and private developers, citing previous indictments and convictions of city council members for corruption.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' actions disproportionately affect low-income Black and Latino individuals who reside at or visit the motel. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants' actions violate their rights, specifically violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages of at least $10 million, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and other relief. 

They are represented in this case by attorney Frank A. Weiser, of the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:23-cv-09156

More News