{"id":1670,"date":"2014-07-08T16:37:43","date_gmt":"2014-07-08T16:37:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/?p=1670"},"modified":"2014-07-08T16:37:43","modified_gmt":"2014-07-08T16:37:43","slug":"palo-alto-and-l-a-victory-santa-cruz-struggle-still-to-be-won","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/palo-alto-and-l-a-victory-santa-cruz-struggle-still-to-be-won\/","title":{"rendered":"Palo Alto and L.A. Victory; Santa Cruz Struggle Still to Be Won"},"content":{"rendered":"

By William Safford<\/em>
\n \"Picture<\/a><\/p>\n

http:\/\/acjusticeproject.org\/2014\/07\/06\/sleepless-in-palo-alto-challenging-the-criminalization-of-being-homeless\/#more-2779<\/a><\/p>\n

On June 19, 2014, a federal court of appeals struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance which criminalized vehicle dwelling<\/a>.\u00a0 The court held that the law, which banned the use of a vehicle as \u201cliving quarters\u201d, was unconstitutionally vague and subject to arbitrary, discriminatory enforcement.\u00a0 This may seem like a Los Angeles problem, but to those immersed in Peninsula politics, it sounds eerily familiar.<\/p>\n

Unconstitutional vagueness is a funny concept.\u00a0 It sounds like a linguistic problem \u2013 tighten up the language and the law will be fine.\u00a0 Yet, this decision recognizes that laws cannot be fundamentally unclear.\u00a0 If you and I cannot tell what is illegal, and neither can the police, then how can enforcement ever be reasonable?\u00a0 The answer, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is that it cannot.\u00a0 If the police arbitrarily decide who to enforce against, then there is no equality of justice, and the law becomes reminiscent of \u201cEnglish feudal poor laws designed to prevent the physical movement and economic ascension of the lower class.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why is this a Palo Alto issue?\u00a0 Because the Palo Alto vehicle habitation ordinance (VHO) is identical in every important way.\u00a0 Both laws criminalize living in a car, but leave important questions wide open.\u00a0 The Palo Alto law attempts to define \u201chuman habitation\u201d as \u201cthe use of a vehicle for a dwelling place, including but not limited to, sleeping, eating or resting\u201d, but if anything, this just makes things less clear.<\/p>\n

In response to this ambiguity, many have asked me what conduct is prohibited by Palo Alto\u2019s new ordinance.\u00a0 The problem is, nobody knows.\u00a0 If Grandma and Grandpa take a trip from Seattle down to San Diego, and they pass through Palo Alto, they are dwelling in their RV.\u00a0 Are they violating the law?\u00a0 If I grab a burger from a drive through, and consume it in my car, am I \u201cdwelling\u201d in my vehicle?<\/p>\n

The answer is \u201cyes\u201d to both questions, but wait!\u00a0 Are we really going to arrest Grandma and Grandpa, with the possibility of up to six months in jail, for driving through the City in a mobile home?\u00a0 Of course not.\u00a0 And therein lies the problem.\u00a0 My clients, who have been driven out of house and home, are using their vehicles as a last place of refuge.\u00a0 And they will be prosecuted.<\/p>\n

As I read the court\u2019s decision, I was struck by the similarities between the Los Angeles plaintiffs and my own clients.\u00a0 Catastrophic medical problems or sudden income disruption are common causes of homelessness.\u00a0 Yet, when the citizens of Palo Alto asked their Council for a solution, they did not call for a better safety net or more shelter beds, but instead for prosecution of the unhoused.<\/p>\n

This is exactly what Los Angeles tried, and the federal court invalidated the law.\u00a0 Palo Alto can expect the same result if it begins enforcement, because I can personally guarantee that the law will be challenged, and not only for vagueness.\u00a0 The Council might even try to write a better version of the law, and eliminate ambiguity.\u00a0 However, the law is unconstitutional on other grounds.\u00a0 The courts have long recognized that laws criminalizing basic human necessities, such as eating and sleeping, are fundamentally unfair.\u00a0 Since someone who owns no private property cannot be expected to sleep and eat in a private place, we cannot punish them for doing so in public.\u00a0 The Los Angeles plaintiffs picked one potential challenge to their ordinance, but there are others.<\/p>\n

In the end, though, this is not a legal problem, but a moral one.\u00a0 If we continue to look for ways to end homelessness by outlawing it, then we will continue to punish people for being unhoused, instead of addressing the root causes of poverty.\u00a0 These are not nameless, faceless vagrants, worthy of our contempt.\u00a0 They are our neighbors, our fellow citizens, and my clients \u2013 and I will not allow them to be punished for their status or run out of town as undesirable.
\n
\n<\/em>
\nWilliam Safford is a criminal defense lawyer in Palo Alto and founder of Homeless Criminal Defense<\/a>.\u00a0 The full text of the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision in Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles and other information can be found at http:\/\/www.HomelessCD.com.\u00a0<\/a> Enforcement of the Palo Alto law has been temporarily suspended, but the City Attorney\u2019s office has stated that it will be advising the Council of the meaning of Desertrain before the end of the year.<\/em>
\nIf you are unhoused, and you need help with a criminal charge or a ticket related to your status, visit www.HomelessCD.com<\/a> and click on \u201cContact\u201d.\u00a0 It may not be possible to provide representation in every case, but if your case is accepted, representation will be pro bono (free of charge).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By William Safford http:\/\/acjusticeproject.org\/2014\/07\/06\/sleepless-in-palo-alto-challenging-the-criminalization-of-being-homeless\/#more-2779 On June 19, 2014, a federal court of appeals struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance which criminalized vehicle dwelling.\u00a0 The court held that the law, which banned the use of a vehicle as \u201cliving quarters\u201d, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[125],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1670"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1670"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1670\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1671,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1670\/revisions\/1671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huffsantacruz.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}