Appeals Court Reverses Homeless Man’s Award : Law: A 1992 jury had ruled for transient whose possessions had been thrown out by Santa Ana employees.

SANTA ANA —  A state appeals court has thrown out a $9,300 award to a homeless man whose belongings were discarded by Santa Ana employees, and decided that the city is entitled to a new trial that limits the man’s potential damage claims.

The ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal issued Wednesday overturned a 1992 Orange County Superior Court jury judgment in favor of Marshone Bonner that was hailed at the time as a victory for the rights of homeless people.

The large trash bag containing Bonner’s possessions, which he said included a diamond ring and watch given to him by his estranged wife and photographs of his three daughters, was taken by maintenance workers one morning in July, 1989, during a sweep of the Civic Center.

While Santa Ana officials were pleased with the ruling, Bonner’s lawyer, Christopher M. Mears, said it marked a “very dark day for those who are victimized by government.”

In a 19-page ruling written by Presiding Justice David G. Sills, the court found that the jury had been given improper instructions during the trial. To establish that Bonner’s constitutional rights were violated, the plaintiff would need to prove that the city had a policy of taking property from the homeless, the court said.

While that issue was argued at trial, the judge instructed the jury to assume that an action taken by a city employee was an official city act.

Santa Ana City Atty. Edward J. Cooper said he was pleased with the ruling and that he is confident no such policy can be proved in a retrial.

“I just don’t see any way that the city in fact had such a policy, because it never existed,” Cooper said.

In trial, Bonner’s attorney presented a memo written by the city’s executive director of recreation and community services describing such a policy. But the city manager, the mayor and Cooper all testified that Santa Ana had no such policy and that the memo was inaccurate.

The appellate ruling also stated that even if Bonner’s attorney proves the city had such a policy and violated Bonner’s constitutional rights, Bonner would not be entitled to emotional damages, but only damages for the loss of his possessions, which he estimated at $1,300.

“There is nothing in the actual text of the due process clause of our Constitution from which emotional distress damages may be inferred for a property deprivation,” Sills wrote in the opinion, which was certified for publication, meaning it can set legal precedent.

The appellate court suggested that Bonner could have pursued other legal actions to recover emotional distress damages.

Mears responded, “Why should society not provide for a full range of damages when the most fundamental rights of its citizens are violated.”

Mears said he had not yet been able to pass on information about the ruling to Bonner, who is in his late 40s, who remains homeless in the area. He said it would be up to Bonner to decide if he wants another trial, which would be the third in the case. A first ended in mistrial.

“The people who are at greatest risk for having their constitutional rights violated by government are almost always, by definition, those people who are poor and disadvantaged,” he continued. “The Constitution has historically been their refuge and the courts have been their guardians. Except today. It’s very disappointing.”