Skip to content

Federal court overturns law that bans people from sleeping in cars

December 13, 2015

 

I knew a woman who had been a successful  secretary  for many years and who had a symptomatic issue with alcoholism.  She lived in her van in North Denver until they towed it.  She lost her life a while later from being on the street and not being able to cope.  I saw her once as I was riding by an alley, barely clad in winter and  offered her what I could. She refused and instead offered me what she had, a prayer that was on a card that I have treasured ever more.  She was only barely making it although she had a daughter living nearby.

Federal court overturns law that bans people from sleeping in cars

The 1983 law that prohibits the use of a vehicle as living quarters has been ruled unconstitutional because it discriminated against the homeless and poor

JUNE 4, 2008 PHOTODAMIAN DOVARGANES/AP

Darlene Knoll, 53, resting in the sleeping area of the battered 1978 motor home where she lives in Los Angeles. A federal appeals court ruling Thursday overturned the law barring people from living in vehicles.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a 31-year-old Los Angeles law that bars people from living in parked vehicles, saying the vaguely written statute discriminates against the homeless and poor.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involved a 1983 law that prohibits the use of a vehicle “as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise.”

The court said the law was unconstitutional because its ambiguous wording does not make clear what conduct would constitute a violation and “criminalizes innocent behavior.”

The decision came in a case brought on behalf of four people who were cited and arrested in the Venice area by Los Angeles police officers who concluded the numerous belongings in their RVs and cars meant they were violating the law.

“Is it impermissible to eat food in a vehicle? Is it illegal to keep a sleeping bag? Canned food? Books? What about speaking on a cellphone? Or staying in the car to get out of the rain?” Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the panel. “These are all actions plaintiffs were taking when arrested for violation of the ordinance, all of which are otherwise perfectly legal.”

The officers were part of an LAPD homelessness task force charged with enforcing the ordinance in response from community complaints about people living in their cars.

The panel’s ruling overturned a lower court judge who had sided with the city and dismissed the case without a trial.

Carol Sobel, the lawyer for the three men and one woman who sued to overturn the law in 2011, said Los Angeles’ ban on living in cars was exceptionally broad. One of her clients was cited while waiting outside a church that served meals and another while driving her RV through Venice on her way to sell her work at a local art fair.

Even so, the ruling might force other western cities within the 9th Circuit’s territory to amend statutes that outlaw sleeping in vehicles, Sobel said, citing the city of Palo Alto as an example.

“People living in their vehicles is one of the great unidentified homeless groups in this country — formerly middle-class people who lost everything during the recession and are trying to maintain the appearance of stability so they can go to work,” she said.

Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, whose office defended the law before the 9th Circuit, said the city would not appeal. Instead, Feuer said he would work with other officials to write a replacement ordinance “that respects both the rights and needs of homeless individuals and protects the quality of life in our neighborhoods.”

“We need to make a break from the past, recognize that the civil and criminal justice systems alone can’t effectively address homelessness, and commit ourselves to grappling with the issues that create homelessness in the first place,” he said.

Pregerson did not make clear in the panel’s opinion what, if anything, city lawmakers could do to make the law pass constitutional muster.

“The city of Los Angeles has many options at its disposal to alleviate the plight and suffering of its homeless citizens,” he wrote. “Selectively preventing the homeless and the poor from using their vehicles for activities many other citizens also conduct in their cars should not be one of those options.”

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: