https://www.latimes.com/world-...to-sleep-on-sidewalk

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court meets Friday to consider for the first time whether the Constitution gives homeless people a right to sleep on the sidewalk.

The justices are weighing an appeal of a much-disputed ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that held last year that it was cruel and unusual punishment to enforce criminal laws against homeless people who are living on the street if a city doesn’t offer enough shelters as an alternative.

The appeals court’s opinion quoted Anatole France’s famous comment that “the law, in all its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges,” and from there, it announced a principle of human rights to strike down city laws that “criminalize the simple act of sleeping outside on public property.”

As precedent, Judge Marsha Berzon cited parts of a 1968 Supreme Court opinion in which several justices questioned whether “chronic alcoholics” may be punished for being drunk in public if they cannot control themselves.

“This principle compels the conclusion that the 8th Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter,” she wrote for the three-judge panel. She described the ruling as “narrow...That is, so long as there no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property.”

The dissenters — and officials in California and the other eight western states covered by the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction — said the ruling was anything but narrow.

The ruling “shackles the hands of public officials trying to redress the serious societal concern of homelessness,” dissenting Judge Milan Smith wrote.

Unless they can provide shelter for all, “local governments are forbidden from enforcing laws restricting sleeping and camping,” he said. “City officials will be powerless to assist residents lodging valid complaints about the health and safety of their neighborhoods.”

Los Angeles and many other cities have asked the court to take up the case. The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction in nine western states from Alaska to Arizona.

The appeals court’s ruling struck down a city ordinance in Boise, Idaho, that made it a misdemeanor to camp or sleep on sidewalks, parks or other places without permission. Such ordinances are common in many other cities and towns. The case began a decade ago when Robert Martin and five other homeless individuals joined a suit after they were given fines of $25 to $75 for violating Boise’s anti-camping ordinance.

Los Angeles lawyer Theane D. Evangelis, a partner at Gibson Dunn who represents Boise, called the 9th Circuit’s decision “both nonsensical and unworkable” and said it handcuffs city officials and police who are trying to cope with the homeless crisis. She filed an appeal petition urging the high court to hear the case and to overturn the appeals court’s decision.

“The creation of a de facto constitutional right to live on the sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the 9th Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities,” she wrote in City of Boise v. Martin. “Public encampments ... have spawned crime and violence, incubated disease and created environmental hazards that threaten the lives and well-being both of those living on the streets and the public at large.”

Since September, at least 20 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in support of Boise’s appeal, including from the National League of Cities, the California State Assn. of Counties, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and seven cities in Orange County.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the homeless said the high court should turn away the appeal. They argue the cities are giving a “distorted” and “dramatically overwrought” reading of the 9th Circuit’s decision.

Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homeless & Poverty, said the ruling “rests on the fundamental principle that you can’t criminalize people because of their status. In this case, it is the status of being human with no place to live.” She said she hoped the ruling would prevent cities “from going down of path of criminalization” when dealing with homelessness.

The justices will consider the appeal behind closed doors. Although they could decide on Friday to consider the case, they’re unlikely to announce a decision for at least another week. Four votes on the nine-member court are required to take up an appeal.

Los Angeles City Atty. Michael Feuer said he urged the high court to take up the case because the city is “seeking clarity.” The 9th Circuit’s opinion was confusing and at times contradictory, he said, adding that it was unclear whether police could enforce any or some laws against people living on the street.

Los Angeles cannot promise it can provide shelter for all of 36,000 homeless people who are living on the streets, he said. But it can provide shelter for some of them, he said, and it is not clear whether officers may take “enforcement action” against those who refuse to go to a nearby shelter that has space for them. He also said it was not clear how much authority the police have to enforce rules against locating homeless encampments near new shelters, cooking food, public urination and defecation or other quality-of-life issues.

The right to sleep on the sidewalk is not a new issue for Los Angeles officials. In 2006, the 9th Circuit handed down a similar ruling in a case called Jones vs. Los Angeles. The appeals court said then that the city could not enforce an ordinance against homeless individuals “for involuntarily sitting, lying and sleeping in public.”

Rather than appeal in that case, the city reached a settlement with the lawyers who brought the suit and agreed to not enforce restrictions on sleeping or camping from 9 p.m until 6 a.m. That rule remains in force.

In their brief to the high court, the city’s attorneys suggested the earlier ruling contributed to the current crisis in Los Angeles.

“As a result of the Jones litigation, Los Angeles has experienced, first-hand, 11 years of grappling with the delicate balance required when public sidewalks serve two essentially incompatible functions,” they said. “The sidewalks are home to thousands of unsheltered residents and their belongings, while at the same time serving as the access way for wheel-chair bound pedestrians who need passable sidewalks, children who need safe passage to school, and business owners who require accessible store fronts.”

The justices are likely to be skeptical about a ruling that relies on the 8th Amendment to void a criminal law. In the past, the high court has invoked the ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” only to limit punishments for certain crimes. Rulings in 2002 and 2005, for example, relied on the 8th Amendment to end the death penalty for defendants who had a mental disability or were under age 18 at the time of their crime.

However, the 9th Circuit pointed to a 1962 decision in Robinson vs. California that struck down part of a state law that “made the ‘status’ of narcotic addiction a criminal offense.” The justices said then that people could be prosecuted for selling or using drugs, but they overturned the conviction of a Los Angeles man who had been convicted entirely on the basis that a police officer testified seeing needle marks in his arm.

But that decision stands alone, according to the appeal in the Boise case. No high court decision “has ever invalidated on 8th Amendment grounds a generally applicable law regulating conduct,” they said.

What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

Do they have the right to camp on the Supreme Court Steps?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

Do they have the right to camp on the Supreme Court Steps?

According to the 9th circuit of retards, probably.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

Agreed. Leftists and their policies are turning our cities into 3rd world shitholes.
Where is the concern for the working man and woman? And their families?


...

The reality is not all the homeless want or will accept government shelter. Such beds come with rules. (As example no couples, no drugs, no pets, out in the morning and not in until night, etc.)
Other homeless don’t trust the government and are quite comfortable sleeping in a park. Pierce County cleared the bank of the Puyallup River. There were tons of trash taken out. One person was asked where’d he go. His reply was he was moving upstream and planned to be back in a month or so.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

Do they have the right to camp on the Supreme Court Steps?

Only if they promise not to shit and piss on the concrete, and dress up on Sundays.

quote:

you can’t criminalize people because of their status. In this case, it is the status of being human with no place to live.”

Not a lawyer, yet this assertion seems ripe for defeat.

Arguably 'criminalize people' may be the focus of her defense, IMHO most assuredly many layers of state.gov have in multiple ways demonstrated they CAN 'criminalize BEHAVIOR'....such as crapping in the doorways of random buildings. &etc.

Why Is Our Society Degrading So Badly, So Fast?

https://www.americanthinker.co...o_badly_so_fast.html

Our Founders created a nation in which the rule of law would prevail and be applied equally to citizens from all walks of life and also would act as a restraint on the power of our leaders. The tradition also includes the assumed duty of all Americans, including our political leaders, to live within the established and agreed upon laws of society.

The Democratic Party's increasingly progressive, left-leaning, radical political agenda contests this fundamental and longstanding American tradition of the law applying equally to all our citizens. Whether I am walking on the streets of my city or viewing the news, I am witnessing on a daily basis increasingly uncivil, lawless, and visibly politically corrupt conduct being tolerated by our country.

Democratic Party policies today support the idea that adhering to the rule of law is no longer obligatory for several designated and politically favored groups selected by them. Progressive politics is attempting to move Americans to accept and adopt a multi-tier justice system based on the unequal application of the law, whereby treatment by the system is increasingly dependent on subjective political considerations.

On a local level in many cities and communities, Democrats in power are by their actions undermining the rule of law. For example, expected compliance with the law in several of our leading cities run by Democratic Party leaders, including most notably New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle, is now often based on a person's economic and immigration status, race, sex, sexual orientation, and increasingly an indication of a person's political and religious affiliations. The reason for these exemptions being granted is based on the dual ideologies of identity politics and social justice.

The creation of an implied multi-tier justice system expressly violates our fundamental value of the law applying equally to citizens from all walks of life and most importantly results in the increasingly intolerable and dangerous conditions existing on the streets of these cities and an overall perception of communities in decline. It has led to environments where ordinary people feel increasingly unsafe due to a lack of enforcement of quality-of-life crimes such as rampart homelessness and loitering, open drug use, and the willing accommodation of numerous illegal aliens performing criminal acts.

Their policies absolve individuals belonging to their politically favored groups of their responsibilities to adhere to our agreed upon laws and act in civil ways. They contend that challenging social and economic conditions are responsible for criminal and antisocial behavior rather than the individual person acting in a negative way. Progressive leaders in these locations are resisting enforcing the law, especially against quality-of-life violations, because they label these actions as the criminalization of poverty and accuse the police of the ongoing use of racist tactics.

Thirty years ago, America's urban centers faced similar issues, leading New York City to adopt under the combined leadership of Republican Mayor Giuliani and his police commissioner, William Bratton, strict law enforcement policies that became to be known as "broken windows' policing. These policies were based on the lifelong and collaborative work of criminologist George L. Kelling and political scientist James Q. Wilson, who became best known for publishing an essay in The Atlantic in 1982, called "Broken Windows."

It emphasized community policing, proactive enforcement of the law, and maintaining order in public places by either arresting or dealing with people for even minor crimes such as drunkenness; vagrancy; prostitution; and, in NYC at that time, subway turnstile–jumpers and the infamous squeegee men. All of these minor crimes were being overlooked, inviting even greater criminality.

The effect of implementing "broken windows" policies by the police in New York City and, soon afterward, across many other cities starting in the 1990s resulted in a dramatic decline in crime, including, most importantly, a significant drop in homicides committed. This crime-fighting approach was fundamental to altering the quality of life of many of our cities and significantly contributed to many of them becoming highly desirable places to live.

The current deterioration of living conditions in many of our cities and communities led by Democratic Party leaders and their progressive policies can be directly attributed to their moving away from the proactive community policing that was previously so effective and created environments that discouraged criminality. Many of these locales are starting to lose population.

In addition, apparently included as one of the favored groups permitted to operate outside the acceptable bounds of civility and the law are Democratic leaders themselves in their ongoing and unrelenting pursuit of power. In Washington, the Democrats are attempting to subvert the will of the majority of the American people, as expressed by the election results in 2016, by executing and plotting orchestrated campaigns to remove President Trump from office before the next election. These efforts range from the recently unsuccessfully perpetrated Russia collusion hoax, which is now being followed up by an illegitimate impeachment drive by the House.

These operations also revealed the mostly clandestine activities of a permanent and extensive Deep State, also labeled "the swamp," actively working with the Democrats to subvert President Trump. A broken environment exists in Washington that contributes to the perception that too many of our elected officials feel free to participate in and to tolerate corruption without being held accountable for their actions. It is highly discouraging for many Americans that up to this point, there have been no legal consequences or viable restraints in place to curb these types of actions that are so fundamentally dangerous to the very foundations of our country.

As a nation, we can look back at the great success the implementation of broken windows enforcement policies and practices as a potential guide to current-day challenges of maintaining a just and civil society both in Washington and across our nation. The crucial and pragmatic next steps in re-creating a proper environment of deterrence in our country against lawless conduct, including misconduct by government officials, will be the impending actions of Attorney General William Barr and U.S. attorney John Durham.

The key question is whether their lengthy investigations of improper activities associated with attempts to remove President Trump from office will lead to the suitable punishment of all the players responsible without exception. If these efforts are unsuccessful, the Deep State wins, and all our freedoms are at risk. A lack of decisive action against these participants will signal to many in government that they are free to operate outside the rule of law with impunity in their pursuit of political power. At risk is our Founders' design for an enduring nation, in which the rule of law would prevail and be applied equally to citizens from all walks of life — and also would act as an ongoing restraint on the power of our government.

Hard working, church going, flag saluting, tax paying Americans , are now considered to be the least important of the country. Every illegal, freak and bum come first.

I remember when our cities were centers of civilization and culture and not magnetics for useless fucking assholes.

quote:

Unless they can provide shelter for all, “local governments are forbidden from enforcing laws restricting sleeping and camping,” he said. “City officials will be powerless to assist residents lodging valid complaints about the health and safety of their neighborhoods.”

So, when did it become local government's responsibility to provide living/sleeping facilities to the general population?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

Where was it that recently legalized shop lifting up to some value like $935? Was that not in Kalifornistan?

quote:

Rather than appeal in that case, the city reached a settlement with the lawyers who brought the suit

I'm sure this did a lot to help the homeless....

So let me get this straight- the judges are quibbling over the right whether a homeless squatter has the right to sleep on the sidewalks but the second amendment which is a guaranteed right is ambiguous, uncertain, and varies in definition from place to place- is all but removed from law abiding citizens in the leftist hellholes where the homeless issues seem to be thriving? I’m confused.

quote:

As precedent, Judge Marsha Berzon cited parts of a 1968 Supreme Court opinion in which several justices questioned whether “chronic alcoholics” may be punished for being drunk in public if they cannot control themselves.

This is logic I don't understand. In essence it's telling me that if a person lets themself get totally out of control, they are not responsible for their actions? Absolutely not, wrong. Your bad choices got you there.

Setting precedent that absolves people of being responsible for their actions (mental illness aside) is dangerous.

Sibling lives in a small city in Nor Cal. There's a park down the street that was once very nice. Old growth redwoods and all. Now a bunch of homeless vagrants camp out there and the place is full of trash and human waste. Lots of used needles too.

Yeah, these decisions are so 'sympathetic'.

Just had the dis privilege of going into downtown Oakland last week. It's mind blowing. All over the place homeless tents and shantys. Can't carry in this shit hole state either so it's an unnerving feeling.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What a load of bullshit that is. So people have a constitutional right to squat in parks and sidewalks because they have no where else to live. What if they can't feed themselves? Do they have a constitutional right to steal any food items they want? What if they don't have adequate mobility? Do they have a constitutional right to steal my truck? These judges and attorneys are the exact reason I no longer have an ounce of respect for the judicial system.

This is where the "rubber meets the road" when it comes to liberty and rights.

It is issues like this where it is important to return to first principles - those principles laid out by the Founders of the nation in the four founding documents of the United States of America. All still in the law according to the U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Otherwise, why include them in Volume 1 of the United States Code or on its website for everyone to read, study and apply in a reputable manner, especially the government.

Organic Laws - Office of the Law Revision Counsel

The first founding document, the Declaration of Independence (DOC), states that we are all created equal (under the law is what they mean) and we all have unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The words "pursuit of happiness" are Ben Franklins words for "property". It further states that governments are instituted to preserve those rights. That is, preserving our unalienable rights is the primary role of government - at least based on the plain written words of the Founders.

The second founding document, the Articles of Confederation (AOC), states in pertinent part: "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States". Note that nowhere in the AOC are the words "right" or "rights” found it only mentions “the security of their liberties” in reference to the sovereign states in Article III. Being part of the “all men” referenced in the DOC, paupers and vagabonds and fugitives from justice still have their unalienable rights which government is duty bound to protect - to a point. Where is that point? There we can look for guidance from Mr. Jefferson: "I will however essay the two definitions which you say are more particularly interesting at present: I mean those of the terms liberty & Republic, aware however that they have been so multifariously applied as to convey no precise idea to the mind. of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Rightful liberty

Since we need to stick to first principles, let's return to the the words “paupers” and "vagabonds" in Article IV of the AOC.
Pauper: "a person destitute of means except such as are derived from charity specifically : one who receives aid from funds designated for the poor"
Vagabond: "a person who wanders from place to place without a fixed home : one leading a vagabond life"; Also: relating to, or characteristic of a wanderer or leading an unsettled, irresponsible, or disreputable life.

The above words don't really help because paupers and vagabonds (vagrants) are at liberty to be poor, unsettled, irresponsible or lead a disreputable life. We will not judge them at this point. If they are fugitives from justice, they will be handled within the law as we would anyone else, citizen or not, see Article IV.

Are we stuck? Are these paupers and vagabonds exercising "rightful liberty". I don’t think so. They are reducing property values and directly harming others economically (property rights), causing damage to public property (property rights again), and impeding others in their normal travels (right to travel) - at a minimum. Thus, they are NOT exercising "rightful liberty", rather the paupers and vagabonds are impacting or destroying the unalienable equal rights of others who are innocent. The innocent group takes precedence and the government must take action to protect their rights - that is the primary role of government. How the government, federal, state or local decides to do this is the question. The paupers and vagabonds are violating the unalienable equal rights of others. They are not at liberty to sleep in the public streets or public property uninvited. I see nothing offensive to our founding principles in isolating paupers and vagabonds from society in some manner while giving them an opportunity to amend their ways if they so choose. It is a free country if you respect the equal rights of others and act in a reputable manner.

The Supreme Court has gotten a few things wrong over the years. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

quote:

Supreme Court confronts homeless crisis and whether there’s a right to sleep on the sidewalk

There may be a "right" (and this is highly arguable; e.g., you can't make people have to step over you) to catch some Z's on the sidewalk for a short time. There is most assuredly not a right to set up camp and befoul it.