Whoa. Just read through it.

Total and complete edit, since I read through an appeal based on the original ruling.

The caselaw you provided has to do with LOST property, not ABANDONED property.

In the case of abandoned property, the proper procedure is to notify the city, allow the city to go out and view the bike, then affix a claim tag on the bike, giving the owner two week's proper notice to claim the bike. If the bike is not claimed within that time, then the city will remove it. I called the city to verify this.

Caselaw having to do with lost property is not the same as caselaw to do with abandoned property. It would be in error to argue one case to prove a totally different case. And the issue is not to do with being sued over what is considered lost, it has to do with what is considered abandoned. The city has a specific procedure as to how to deal with abandoned bikes. Until an owner of an abandoned bike who sues the city steps in to change how they respond to a claim for abandoned bikes, I don't think they're going to change their procedure.

It may be a good idea to understand the procedures of the city before making assumptions about what should or should not be done based on caselaw that has little or nothing to do with how the city acts. Give our city non-emergency folks a call if you need some expanded explanation on what they consider abandonment and how they act to rid the city of abandoned vehicles.

No harm no foul- I don't get upset over trivial matters. Seriously.
Koffee