The Federal Government Says Being Homeless Should Not Be A Crime

[sheclown]

The Federal Government Says Being Homeless Should Not Be A Crime
Prosecuting people for sleeping in public "violates their constitutional rights."
Headshot of Ryan J. Reilly
Ryan J. Reilly
Justice Reporter, The Huffington Post

Posted: 08/06/2015 11:38 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Laws that make it a crime for homeless people to sleep in public places even when there isn't enough room for them at a shelter unconstitutionally punish the homeless, lawyers for the Obama administration said in a court filing on Thursday.

The federal government took this position against so-called anti-camping laws in an ongoing case against the city of Boise, Idaho, which has enforced ordinances banning sleeping in public spaces and ended up convicting homeless plaintiffs.

Attorneys in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division argued that "the conduct of sleeping in a public place is indistinguishable from the status of homelessness" and that it should be "uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a universal and unavoidable consequence of being human" violates the Eighth Amendment. They noted that "finding a safe and legal place to sleep can be difficult or even impossible" for many homeless people.

"Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity -- i.e., it must occur at some time in some place.  If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless," the filing stated.

"Criminally prosecuting those individuals for something as innocent as sleeping, when they have no safe, legal place to go, violates their constitutional rights," Vanita Gupta, the head of the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.

"Moreover, enforcing these ordinances is poor public policy," said Gupta. "Needlessly pushing homeless individuals into the criminal justice system does nothing to break the cycle of poverty or prevent homelessness in the future. Instead, it imposes further burdens on scarce judicial and correctional resources, and it can have long-lasting and devastating effects on individuals' lives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-crime-sleeping_55c3742ee4b0923c12bbb772?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&section=politics

[spuwho]

Typically we will work with the municipality to gauge the needs for homeless overnights before they take civic action like citations and arrests. This way we insure that there will be enough space.

There will always be some that reject a shelter and usually a time window is worked out where a homeless person has to be off the property if they only want to sleep.

There is a balance that can be struck between the needs of the homeless and the publics desire for safe and clean parks.

I am not familiar with the Idaho situation directly, but legal action usually occurs when compromises cant be reached.

[sheclown]

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice MARK KAPPELHOFF EVE HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Civil Rights Division JUDY PRESTON Acting Chief Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section TIMOTHY MYGATT Special Litigation Counsel Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section SHARON BRETT (NY 5090279) Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 353-1091 Email:Sharon.Brett@usdoj.gov WENDY OLSON United States Attorney for the District of Idaho United States Department of Justice CHIRAAG BAINS Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Of Counsel:
Lisa Foster Director Office for Access to Justice Maha Jweied Deputy Director Office for Access to Justice Robert Bullock (CA 219942) Senior Counsel Office for Access to Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 514-5324 Email: Bob.Bullock@usdoj.gov
 Attorneys for the United States of America
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
) JANET F. BELL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-540-REB
 
v. ) Hon. ) CITY OF BOISE, et al., )
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
)
OF THE UNITED STATES
Defendants. )  _________________________________________ )
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 17
 
 
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 2
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
On any given night in the United States, half a million people are likely to be experiencing homelessness.
1
 Homeless individuals are a diverse population, including children, families, veterans, and the elderly. The causes of homelessness are also varied. In recent years, some people who were affected by the economic downturn and foreclosure crisis have become homeless.
2
 Some homeless individuals have serious and persistent physical or behavioral health conditions that neither they nor the communities in which they live have sufficient services to accommodate. As a result, these individuals are unable to obtain permanent housing.
3
 Other individuals are homeless because of circumstances beyond their control; they are victims of domestic violence and trafficking, or youth who are separated from their families.
4
For many homeless people, finding a safe and legal place to sleep can be difficult or even impossible. In many cities, shelters are unable to accommodate all who are homeless. These individuals must find space in a public shelter or sleep on the street.
5
 In 2014, 42% of homeless individuals slept in unsheltered, public locations—under bridges, in cars, in  parks, on the sidewalk, or in abandoned buildings.
6
 
1
 U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev.,
2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report
(“2014 AHAR”) 1 (October 2014),
available at
 https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2014-AHAR-Part1.pdf. The 2014 AHAR found that as of January 2014, 578,424 individuals in the United States were homeless on any given night.
2
 
See generally
 
id.
 Nationally, 11% of all homeless adults are veterans.
 Id.
 at 40.
3
 U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,
Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and  End Homelessness
 6, 10-11 (2010),
available at
 http://usich.gov/PDF/OpeningDoors_2010_FSPPreventEndHomeless.pdf.
4
 There are approximately 45,205 unaccompanied homeless children in the United States. 2014 AHAR at 1. “Unaccompanied children and youth” is defined in the AHAR as a person under the age of 25 who is not a member of a family or a multi-child household.
 Id.
 at 32.
5
 
 Id.
 
6
 
 Id.
 at 14. In 2014 there were roughly 153,000 unsheltered homeless individuals nationwide on any given night.
 Id.
 
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 17
 
 
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 3
In this case, Plaintiffs are homeless individuals who were convicted of violating certain city ordinances that prohibit camping and sleeping in public outdoor places.
7
 They claim that the City of Boise and the Boise Police Department’s (“BPD”) enforcement of these ordinances against homeless individuals violates their constitutional rights because there is inadequate shelter space available in Boise to accommodate the city’s homeless population. Plaintiffs argue that criminalizing public sleeping in a city without adequate shelter space constitutes criminalizing homelessness itself, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
8
The parties disagree about the appropriate framework for analyzing Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs encourage the court to follow
 Jones v. City of Los Angeles
, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (
vacated after settlement
, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007)), which held that enforcement of anti-camping ordinances may violate the Eighth Amendment on nights where there is inadequate
7
 
See
 Revised Second Am. Compl. at 4-5, ECF No. 171. Plaintiffs in this case challenge the application of two Boise Municipal Code ordinances. The first ordinance, Boise City Code § 9-10-02,  prohibits “us[ing] any of the streets, sidewalks, parks or public places as a camping place at any time, or to cause or permit any vehicle to remain in any of said places to the detriment of public travel or convenience.” The ordinance defines “camp” or “camping” to mean “the use of public property as a temporary or permanent place of dwelling, lodging or residence, or as a living accommodation at any time  between sunset and sunrise, or as a sojourn.” The second ordinance, § 6-01-05(A), prohibits “disorderly conduct,” which includes “

• ccupying, lodging or sleeping in any building, structure or place, whether  public or private, or in any motor vehicle without the permission of the owner or person entitled to  possession or in control thereof.”

8
 Plaintiffs allege that BPD’s enforcement practices are unconstitutional because: 1) there is insufficient shelter space available to accommodate all who are homeless in Boise, Pls. Mem. in Supp. of Pls. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls. Mem.”), ECF No. 243-2, at 16-18; 2) there are restrictions on certain shelter  beds that some homeless individuals are unable to meet, thereby preventing them from obtaining shelter space even when beds may be unoccupied,
id.
 at 20; and 3) the BPD continues to enforce the anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances when shelters are full and against those who do not qualify for the beds, either because BPD officers are insufficiently trained or they are unaware when shelters are full because of unreliable reporting from the shelters
. Id.
 at 20-21. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that there has never been a time when a homeless individual was turned away from a shelter due to lack of space, and even if that were to occur, the BPD would not enforce the ordinances under such circumstances. Defs. Resp. in Opp’n to Pl. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs. Resp.”), ECF No. 257, at 7-10. The parties dispute whether individuals are being turned away from shelters for lack of space or inaccessibility to persons with disabilities. The parties also dispute whether the beds available in the Boise Rescue Mission, which is affiliated with a religious institution, should be counted in the total number of available beds for homeless individuals, as use of those beds may subject them to unwanted  proselytizing. Pls. Mem. at 13-14. The United States takes no position on any of these disputes.
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 17
 
 
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 4
shelter space available for all of a city’s homeless individuals. Pls. Mem. at 5. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that Plaintiffs’ reliance on
 Jones
 is “heavily misplaced, factually unsupported, and immaterial to this case.” Defs. Resp. at 7. Because the summary judgment briefing in this case makes clear that there is a significant dispute between the parties on the applicability of
 Jones
 and conflicting lower court case law in this area, the United States files this Statement of Interest to make clear that the
 Jones
 framework is the appropriate legal framework for analyzing Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims. Under the
 Jones
 framework, the Court should consider whether conforming one’s conduct to the ordinance is possible for people who are homeless. If sufficient shelter space is unavailable  because a) there are inadequate beds for the entire population, or b) there are restrictions on those  beds that disqualify certain groups of homeless individuals (e.g., because of disability access or exceeding maximum stay requirements), then it would be impossible for some homeless individuals to comply with these ordinances. As set forth below, in those circumstances enforcement of the ordinances amounts to the criminalization of homelessness, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
The United States has authority to file this Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 517, which permits the Attorney General to attend to the interests of the United States in any case pending in a federal court.
9
 
9
 The full text of 28 U.S.C. § 517 is as follows: “The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.”
Pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), the United States enforces the rights of individuals to be free from unconstitutional and abusive policing. The United States has used its
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 17

[sheclown]

Justice Department Files Brief to Address the Criminalization of Homelessness

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest today arguing that making it a crime for people who are homeless to sleep in public places, when there is insufficient shelter space in a city, unconstitutionally punishes them for being homeless.  The statement of interest was filed in federal district court in Idaho in Bell v. City of Boise et al., a case brought by homeless plaintiffs who were convicted under Boise ordinances that criminalize sleeping or camping in public.

As stated by the Justice Department in its filing, “t should be uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a universal and unavoidable consequence of being human violates the Eighth Amendment. . .  Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity—i.e., it must occur at some time in some place.  If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.”

“Many homeless individuals are unable to secure shelter space because city shelters are over capacity or inaccessible to people with disabilities,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division.  “Criminally prosecuting those individuals for something as innocent as sleeping, when they have no safe, legal place to go, violates their constitutional rights.  Moreover, enforcing these ordinances is poor public policy.  Needlessly pushing homeless individuals into the criminal justice system does nothing to break the cycle of poverty or prevent homelessness in the future.  Instead, it imposes further burdens on scarce judicial and correctional resources, and it can have long-lasting and devastating effects on individuals’ lives.”

“No one wants people to sleep on sidewalks or in parks, particularly not our veterans, or young people, or people with mental illness,” said Director Lisa Foster of the Office for Access to Justice.  “But the answer is not to criminalize homelessness.  Instead, we need to work with our local government partners to provide the services people need, including legal services, to obtain permanent and stable housing.”

In this case, the plaintiffs allege that enforcement of the city of Boise ordinances prohibiting sleeping or camping in public outdoor places, on nights when there is insufficient shelter space in Boise to accommodate the homeless population, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  In its filing, the United States does not take a position on the factual accuracy of the plaintiffs’ claims, but instead addresses the appropriate legal framework for analyzing their claims.  The statement of interest advocates for the application of the analysis set forth in Jones v. City of Los Angeles, a Ninth Circuit decision that was subsequently vacated pursuant to a settlement.  In Jones, the court considered whether the city of Los Angeles provided sufficient shelter space to accommodate the homeless population.  The court found that, on nights when individuals are unable to secure shelter space, enforcement of anti-camping ordinances violated their constitutional rights.  The parties in Bell v. City of Boise disagree about whether the Jones court’s analysis was correct, reflecting the longstanding disagreement among courts analyzing the constitutionality of anti-camping ordinances.  The statement of interest was filed to address this currently unsettled area of the law.

Bell v. City of Boise et al. was filed in the District of Idaho in 2009.

[fsquid]

 Police powers belong to the states.

[Adam White]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

[spuwho]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

[Adam White]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

Are you serious?

[jph]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

Are you serious?

It's the same reason why we should get rid of the local police and demolish local roads. We've got the FBI and the interstate system. Good enough for me!

[Adam White]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

Are you serious?

It's the same reason why we should get rid of the local police and demolish local roads. We've got the FBI and the interstate system. Good enough for me!

The federal government has a long history of intervening when it is apparent that human rights/civil rights/civil liberties abuses are taking place. That doesn't mean local law enforcement and government shouldn't be involved as well - it means the federal gov't has to intercede when the local folks aren't doing their jobs.

[spuwho]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

Are you serious?

No I wasn't. Human Rights is a global thing.  I thought it interesting that you assigned it to the Feds immediately.

[Adam White]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

Are you serious?

No I wasn't. Human Rights is a global thing.  I thought it interesting that you assigned it to the Feds immediately.

I didn't assign to the Feds. I said it was something they are concerned with. As in, this isn't an issue of policing - it's an issue of the local or State government potentially violating the human rights of homeless people. So the argument that the Feds shouldn't be involved because policing is a matter for the States doesn't apply - it's a human rights issue and the Feds have every right to be involved.

[The_Choose_1]

Police powers belong to the states.

Perhaps. But human rights are the concern of the Federal Government.

If that is true, why does COJ need a HRO?

Are you serious?

No I wasn't. Human Rights is a global thing.  I thought it interesting that you assigned it to the Feds immediately.

I didn't assign to the Feds. I said it was something they are concerned with. As in, this isn't an issue of policing - it's an issue of the local or State government potentially violating the human rights of homeless people. So the argument that the Feds shouldn't be involved because policing is a matter for the States doesn't apply - it's a human rights issue and the Feds have every right to be involved.

(it's a human rights issue and the Feds have every right to be involved.) AMEN!