Williams, 38, has been homeless for more than a decade. While she doesn\u2019t have enough money to pay for an apartment, she uses her disability benefits to pay for other necessities.<\/p>\n
And she kept her receipts.<\/p>\n
Williams documented $5,239.43 in lost property and sued for an additional $7,000 for emotional damages. Court filings claim that, because the city threw out her laptop last February \u2013 and her replacement laptop in June \u2013 she dropped out of the online GED program she had been attending and stopped going to virtual therapy appointments. Her life, she said, unraveled.<\/p>\n
After Williams rejected the city\u2019s offer to settle with her before an initial court appearance last month, the case pressed on. Representatives for the city argued in small claims court that officials could not have known the items she had stored in plastic boxes were not garbage. They will argue the case again on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
![\"Elizabeth](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/SAC_0174_RCB_20260113_ElizabethHomeless.JPG\" "\\"SAC_0174_RCB_20260113_ElizabethHomeless.JPG\\"")
Elizabeth Williams, 38, scratches the chin of one of her three service dogs, Little Baby, near an improvised tarp shelter in South Natomas on Jan. 13. After multiple encampment sweeps, she no longer has a tent or many of her belongings, and she is suing the city in small claims court for the losses. REN\u00c9E C. BYER rbyer@sacbee.com <\/p>\n
Sacramento Police Department Lieutenant Sameer Sood was one of the people who appeared on behalf of the city in the Feb. 25 hearing. Sood is assigned to the department\u2019s Impact Unit, which responds to certain homelessness calls. He told a judge that police can \u201cabsolutely\u201d be liable for damaging a person\u2019s property in the course of law enforcement work.<\/p>\n
But with homeless sweeps \u2014 in which code enforcement and police often work together to clear encampments and move out the people who live in them \u2014 he said, \u201cThis area of law enforcement has lots and lots of gray area.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Sacramento Police Department\u2019s internal sweeps policy does not mention a gray area. A training bulletin titled \u201cUnlawful Camping Enforcement Guidelines\u201d \u2014 submitted to the judge as part of the lawsuit \u2014 says that in the event of an arrest, officers should ask the homeless person to identify what should be stored and what is trash. Williams was arrested during both of the sweeps in which she lost her belongings and jailed on charges of storing personal property in public and unlawful camping under the Sacramento City Code.<\/p>\n
The guidelines say that \u201cofficers shall safeguard personal property\u201d of homeless people. They say that those items fall into three categories: life necessities such as important identification documents and survival gear, other monetarily or intrinsically valuable personal property or \u201cperishable items and trash.\u201d While perishable items and trash will not be stored, the document says, other types of property should be held by the police.<\/p>\n
Court records say police did store some of Williams\u2019 items, including her generator in February 2025, but other items they stored seemed far less important than her medications and her laptop, including one power bank, a chest of gemstones, a bike cupholder and a bike light.<\/p>\n
In the court filings, Williams made a list of the things that she lost in each sweep.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe city did not store my medication, IDs, CalFresh card, debit cards, or my laptop,\u201d she said in a declaration about the February 2025 sweep. \u201cThe City destroyed my tent, all my clothing, shoes, sleeping bags, bedding, tables, grills and stoves, tables, utensils, charging banks, speakers, power tools, hair clippers, ropes and tie outs, sanitary products like wipes and soap, cameras I use for security, flashlights, and all our charging cords. The city destroyed our food, my dogs\u2019 food, and my dogs\u2019 beds, crates and (dog) strollers.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the same declaration, she also detailed some of the more intangible losses.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe impact of losing everything, of being treated like my property is trash, is really big. It makes me feel as though I am worthless,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThe sweep set me back in every possible way. Losing everything means I have to focus on rebuilding a safe place to sleep, rather than following up with my doctors or housing navigator. I don\u2019t even have my ID anymore if I were to get an apartment tomorrow.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a second declaration related to the June sweep, she said, \u201cI try so hard to survive and do my best. I was proud of being in school and programs. I was feeling good and hopeful about the future. But that was taken from me. Literally taken from me.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Elizabeth](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/SAC_0300_RCB_20250319_HomelessJail.JPG\" "\\"SAC_0300_RCB_20250319_HomelessJail.JPG\\"")
Elizabeth William sits inside her tent in South Natomas in March 2025, just one month after she was arrested for unlawful camping. Williams said that when the Sacramento police took her to jail in February 2025, they threw away her ID, debit card, Social Security card and birth certificate, making it hard to receive her tax return. REN\u00c9E C. BYER rbyer@sacbee.com What happened at hearing?<\/p>\n
On Feb. 25, the day of the hearing, the case was assigned to Judge Stephen Lau.<\/p>\n
In the courtroom, Lau asked Williams how an officer can differentiate debris from a homeless individual\u2019s personal property. He said to Williams, \u201cIf it\u2019s neatly put aside, you think they have an obligation to store it?\u201d She said yes, that\u2019s what she thought. She would understand if they threw out a balled-up tent, for example, but on one of the sweeps, she said they threw away a plastic box labeled \u201cclean clothes.\u201d<\/p>\n
In response to a similar question, Sood said \u201cthere\u2019s no really black-and-white\u201d when it comes to identifying what objects to store. He explained the three categories of property outlined in the policy document.<\/p>\n
Sood also said that officers face a \u201cfloating target.\u201d For example, he said, if someone who was not disabled had five wheelchairs, the wheelchairs might be considered debris.<\/p>\n
Lau asked what would happen \u201cif the officer mistakenly categorizes something that\u2019s important,\u201d giving the example of a laptop \u2014 an item of objective value.<\/p>\n
Sood said there was no good answer to the question, but suggested that it was possible a laptop could look broken.<\/p>\n
In about four minutes of bodycam footage from a sweep of Williams\u2019 encampment that was played for the courtroom, Williams explained to an officer that her items \u2014 arranged next to the sidewalk, with many of the items packed in closed plastic tote boxes \u2014 have been moved from where they were when she received the sweep notice. She said that she was waiting for a friend with a pickup truck to move them into her storage unit. One officer says, \u201cIt\u2019s not being moved this second.\u201d<\/p>\n
After the footage was paused, Sood said that police could be liable for damaging people\u2019s items, but reiterated that sweeps have \u201clots and lots of gray area.\u201d<\/p>\n
Looking at Williams\u2019 things in the bodycam footage, the lieutenant said, \u201cIt\u2019s about 75 feet of debris.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOf items,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n
\u201cOf items,\u201d the lieutenant conceded. \u201cI\u2019m sorry, your honor.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other homeless people have sued<\/p>\n
The city frequently sweeps encampments; as part of those efforts, they may trash some personal belongings of the people who were living there. The Sacramento Bee has previously reported on the destruction of items including IDs, medication, blankets, irreplaceable family photos and a loved one\u2019s ashes<\/a>.<\/p>\n Public records show that county social services workers have objected to sweeps<\/a>, indicating that they undermined case workers\u2019 efforts to find people and place them in shelters or housing.<\/p>\n Williams had particularly meticulous records of her belongings and their cost. In one exhibit filed in the case, she included a spreadsheet of all the items that were destroyed by the authorities in February and June. Socks: $12.33. Grill: $16.93. Butane stove: $21.93. Self-heating hand warmers: $11.43. An eight-person tent: $116.36. Doghouses: $417.84. Dog beds: $56.44.<\/p>\n Other than the laptops and charging equipment, most of the items were relatively inexpensive, adding up to $5,239.43.<\/p>\n In a declaration, Williams explained the financial fallout.<\/p>\n \u201cI spend all my (Supplemental Security Income) on repurchasing clothing, tents, sleeping gear, food. Things that I had and were perfectly usable, organized, and clean. I don\u2019t have money to buy a new laptop, get rides to the doctors, and find a way to get back to my therapy. I don\u2019t even know where to start,\u201d Williams said.<\/p>\n There is precedent for homeless people suing the city or county of Sacramento in connection with sweeps. In May 2019, a group of homeless people filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Sacramento County over an encampment clearing on Stockton Boulevard. As in Williams\u2019 case, attorneys argued that a sweep had violated the plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Amendment rights protecting them from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as their 14th Amendment right to due process. They also said that deputies had used excessive force, claiming that a deputy broke a woman\u2019s previously injured arm in the sweep.<\/p>\n According to the complaint, \u201cThe Sheriff\u2019s Department workers did not use care in handling the individual Plaintiffs\u2019 unabandoned property and treated almost all items as if they were presumptively trash.\u201d<\/p>\n One of the plaintiffs in that case, the document says, lost her medication, her breathing machine and a medical device that she used to treat a bone injury when officials swept the site where she lived. The document says that another plaintiff \u201cwatched the Sheriff\u2019s Deputies throw out her items she did not abandon but was unable to carry out at the beginning of the raid without any regard to their apparent condition, utility, and value.\u201d<\/p>\n The county settled that case for $18,500, w<\/a>ithout acknowledging wrongdoing.<\/p>\n The Bee\u2019s Theresa Clift contributed to this story.<\/p>\n This story was originally published March 24, 2026 at 5:00 AM.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n![\"Elizabeth](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/SAC_0264_RCB_20260113_ElizabethHomeless.JPG\" "\\"SAC_0264_RCB_20260113_ElizabethHomeless.JPG\\"")
Elizabeth Williams, 38, prepares hamburgers beside one of her three service dogs, Little Baby, underneath an improvised tarp shelter in South Natomas on Jan. 13, 2026. Williams said that losing her belongings undermined the bit of stability she had. Since March 2025, she dropped out of online classes she was taking because her laptop was discarded as trash. After her debit card was thrown away in a sweep, she couldn\u2019t pay her phone bill, and she lost the number she had kept for years \u2014 making it more difficult for social services agencies to contact her. REN\u00c9E C. BYER rbyer@sacbee.com <\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/ariane_headshot_-449.jpeg\")