Federal Judge Stops San Diego from Ticketing Homeless Living in Vehicles

[Swordsmyth]

Ruling on a class-action lawsuit by nine homeless people living in their vehicles, a federal judge issued an injunction Tuesday ordering San Diego police to stop enforcing the local ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-homeless-vehicle-20180822-story.html):

“A federal judge has ordered San Diego to stop ticketing homeless people for living inside vehicles, calling the city’s longtime law prohibiting such behavior too vague for effective enforcement.
“The injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia on Tuesday is a victory for a group of disabled homeless people living in recreational vehicles who filed suit last year against the law, which they claim is discriminatory.”
The injunction will stand until the judge makes a final ruling which, he says, he expects will favor the vehicle-dwellers.
NBC 7 San Diego reports (https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Judge-Blocks-City-of-San-Diego-From-Ticketing-Homeless-491571731.html) that 295 citations for violating the anti-vehicle-habitation ordinance were issued in 2017, up from 281 in 2016.

More at: https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/federal-judge-stops-san-diego-ticketing-homeless-living-vehicles

[DamianTV]

Blame the victims. Poverty is the result of being a victim of the Central Banks, and they can no longer afford to defend themselves. Being poor in and of itself should never constitute a crime.

[timosman]

Being poor in and of itself should never constitute a crime.

Are you sure this is a good idea? The poor being able to refuse the helping hand of the state? :cool:

[DamianTV]

Are you sure this is a good idea? The poor being able to refuse the helping hand of the state? :cool:

The helping hand of the state is how we fall. If we are to be truly free, then we also need to be truly responsible for each other. That means people, not the state, help out those who have fallen on hard times. We defend those who are unable to defend themselves, especially against the deceptive actions of the Money Manipulators, who are the primary cause of MOST of the wars on this planet as well as the exceptional poverty that always comes with allowing Central Banks to control the issue of peoples money.

Money should be the SERVANT of Humanity, never the MASTER.

The consequence is it would cause the State to be fired from the job of providing both Welfare and Warfare.

[goldenequity]

5 star thread :check:

[Ender]

The helping hand of the state is how we fall. If we are to be truly free, then we also need to be truly responsible for each other. That means people, not the state, help out those who have fallen on hard times. We defend those who are unable to defend themselves, especially against the deceptive actions of the Money Manipulators, who are the primary cause of MOST of the wars on this planet as well as the exceptional poverty that always comes with allowing Central Banks to control the issue of peoples money.

Money should be the SERVANT of Humanity, never the MASTER.

The consequence is it would cause the State to be fired from the job of providing both Welfare and Warfare.

^^^THIS!^^^

And I'd +rep you again, if I could!

[oyarde]

Well , the Judge should not miss an opportunity to point out that if the police are issuing one of these per day that they do not have enough constructive work to do or there are too many of them on the payroll and citizens should quit whining about people living in cars in a high tax state .

[Cap]

The helping hand of the state is how we fall. If we are to be truly free, then we also need to be truly responsible for each other. That means people, not the state, help out those who have fallen on hard times. We defend those who are unable to defend themselves, especially against the deceptive actions of the Money Manipulators, who are the primary cause of MOST of the wars on this planet as well as the exceptional poverty that always comes with allowing Central Banks to control the issue of peoples money.

Money should be the SERVANT of Humanity, never the MASTER.

The consequence is it would cause the State to be fired from the job of providing both Welfare and Warfare.
Five Star Post :check:

[Anti Federalist]

^^^THIS!^^^

And I'd +rep you again, if I could!

Covered.

[Brian4Liberty]

“A federal judge has ordered San Diego to stop ticketing homeless people for living inside vehicles, calling the city’s longtime law prohibiting such behavior too vague for effective enforcement.

Really? Interesting. So the Federal government can invalidate local laws if they are too vague. That must be in the Constitution somewhere, right?

[Zippyjuan]

Blame the victims. Poverty is the result of being a victim of the Central Banks, and they can no longer afford to defend themselves. Being poor in and of itself should never constitute a crime.

We should roll back our system to when there were no poor. What was the banking system back then? When was there no poverty?

[timosman]

Really? Interesting. So the Federal government can invalidate local laws if they are too vague. That must be in the Constitution somewhere, right?

Amendment VIII?

[timosman]

We should roll back our system to when there were no poor. What was the banking system back then? When was there no poverty?

We are rolling forward instead. Communism will solve all of our social ills. :cool:

[goldenequity]

Really? Interesting. So the Federal government can invalidate local laws if they are too vague. That must be in the Constitution somewhere, right?
Strict anti-vagrancy laws are, in fact, perfectly constitutional,
because they are narrowly tailored to the specific problem that the locality is attempting to address.

It's when anti-vagrancy and anti-loitering laws become too vague that courts become suspicious.
This is what happened in 1983 in the case of Kolender v. Lawson, where the Supreme Court held that
vague laws which gave police too much discretion in making arrests ran afoul of the due process protections in the Constitution.

In several cases, the Supreme Court has found vagrancy and loitering ordinances unconstitutional due to vagueness,
in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give a person notice of prohibited conduct and encourages arbitrary police enforcement.

Since many loitering laws have similarly broad and vague language,
homeless persons and advocates have a strong argument that such laws violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

punishments for sleeping outside have been challenged in courts for violating homeless persons’ civil rights.

Some courts have found that arresting homeless people for sleeping outside
when no shelter space exists
violates their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Advocates also have contended that arresting people for sleeping outside violates the fundamental right to travel.
If people are arrested for sleeping in public in a city or certain areas of a city,
those arrests have the effect of preventing homeless people from moving within a city or coming to a city,
thereby interfering with their right to travel.

http://nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/constitutional.html
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-unconstitutional-to-make-homelessness-illegal-in-a-U-S-locality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/13/its-unconstitutional-to-ban-the-homeless-from-sleeping-outside-the-federal-government-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ca5f81c7260
--------

August 13, 2015
It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/13/its-unconstitutional-to-ban-the-homeless-from-sleeping-outside-the-federal-government-says

We all need sleep, which is a fact of life but also a legally important point.
Last week, the Department of Justice argued as much in a statement of interest it filed in a relatively obscure case in Boise, Idaho,
that could impact how cities regulate and punish homelessness.

Boise, like many cities — the number of which has swelled since the recession — has an ordinance banning sleeping or camping in public places.
But such laws, the DOJ says, effectively criminalize homelessness itself in situations where people simply have nowhere else to sleep.

Laws like these have grown more common as that math has actually grown worse since the recession.

"Homelessness is just becoming more visible in communities, and when homelessness becomes more visible,
there’s more pressure on community leaders to do something about it,"

From the DOJ's filing:

When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public.
However, when adequate shelter space does not exist,
there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public.

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.

Such laws, the DOJ argues, violate the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment,
making them unconstitutional.
By weighing in on this case, the DOJ's first foray in two decades into this still-unsettled area of law,
the federal government is warning cities far beyond Boise and backing up federal goals
to treat homelessness more humanely.

[Swordsmyth]

Really? Interesting. So the Federal government can invalidate local laws if they are too vague. That must be in the Constitution somewhere, right?

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Vague laws do not provide due process.



Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



If the law is vague it is impossible to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against you.



Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)The enumeration in the Constitution (http://constitutionus.com/#constitution), of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.




Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Vague laws abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens and states may not do that, they violate due process (as stated above) and they do not provide equal protection because the are subjectively enforced.

[RJB]

We should roll back our system to when there were no poor. What was the banking system back then? When was there no poverty?

Neg rep for defense of the Fed. Come on Zip. On a forum named for the man who wrote "End the Fed.". That's just wrong, man.

[oyarde]

Really? Interesting. So the Federal government can invalidate local laws if they are too vague. That must be in the Constitution somewhere, right?

Must be excessive fines .

[timosman]

Neg rep for defense of the Fed. Come on Zip. On a forum named for the man who wrote "End the Fed.". That's just wrong, man.

Our tolerance is being used against us. Can someone remind me what's the point of keeping Zip around? He is not even a debater. More like a flasher. :cool: