• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
WRAP

WRAP

Western Regional Advocacy Project

  • Donate Now
  • Get Email Updates
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
    • History
    • Mission
    • Strategy
    • Members
    • Board / Staff
  • Campaigns
    • Business Improvement Districts
    • House Keys Not Sweeps
    • Homeless Bill of Rights
    • Oregon Right To Rest
    • Without Housing
    • Street Outreach
  • Organizing Tools
    • Without Housing Organizing Toolkit
    • Homeless Bill of Rights Campaign Manual
    • WRAP Organizers Manual
    • WRAP Artwork
  • Resources
    • Art in Action Power Point Slide Show
    • Hobos to Street People
    • House Keys Book
    • Political Education
    • Legal Research
  • Media
    • Blog
    • Hobos to Street People Art Show
    • Street Newspapers
    • Sweeps Gallery Videos
    • Videos
  • Support Us
    • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Sustainer
    • Volunteer
    • Support WRAP
    • WRAP Newsletters & Updates Sign Up

EXCERPTS US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTER OF INTEREST

September 15, 2015 by Jonathan 1 Comment

Artwork by Roonie Goodman
Artwork by Roonie Goodman

The United States Department of Justice filed a “Statement of Interest of the United States Department of Justice”, filed August 6 of this year,  regarding  a suit, Janet F. Bell v City of Boise, in which Boise’s anti-camping law, very similar to ours was challenged.  The Department of Justice Statement of Interest basically advises the Court in which a case is being tried of the Constitutional issues which must dictate its decision.
“Using this reasoning, the vital question for the Court becomes: Given the current homeless population and available shelter space in Boise, as well as any restrictions on those shelter beds, are homeless individuals in Boise capable of conforming the necessary life activity of sleeping to the current law? If not, enforcing the anti-camping ordinances and criminalizing sleeping in public violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is no different from criminalizing homelessness itself. The Jones framework, developed from analyses of earlier cases, makes it clear that punishing homeless people for “acts they are forced to perform in public effectively punishes them for being homeless.”
In addition to the legal opinion, the DOJ Letter of Interest also addresses the efficacy of No Camping and No Sleeping  Laws, and I quote.

“Criminalizing public sleeping in cities with insufficient housing and support for homeless individuals does not improve public safety outcomes or reduce the factors that contribute to homelessness. As noted by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, “[r]ather than helping people to regain housing, obtain employment, or access needed treatment and service, criminalization creates a costly revolving door that circulates individuals experiencing homelessness from the street to the criminal justice system and back.”17 Issuing citations for public sleeping forces individuals into the criminal justice system and creates additional obstacles to overcoming homelessness. Criminal records can create barriers to employment and participation in permanent, supportive housing programs.18 Convictions under these municipal ordinances can also lead to lengthy jail sentences based on the ordinance violation itself, or the inability to pay fines and fees associated with the ordinance violation. Incarceration, in turn, has a profound effect on these individuals’ lives.19   Finally, pursuing charges against individuals for sleeping in public imposes further burdens on scarce public defender, judicial, and carceral resources. Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court should adopt the analysis in Jones to evaluate Boise’s anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances as applied to Plaintiffs in this case. If the Court finds that it is impossible for homeless individuals to secure shelter space on some nights because no beds are available, no shelter meets their disability needs, or they have exceeded the maximum stay limitations, then the Court should also find that enforcement of the ordinances under those circumstances criminalizes the status of being homeless and violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

Sharon Brett
Attorney for the United States of America

As we all know, Eugene’s homeless population far exceeds the number of shelter beds available.  Additionally,  there is virtually no shelter for those with serious medical problems, with serious mental health problems  serious addiction problems.  Since we cannot provide adequate shelter, enforcement of Eugene’s anti camping laws is clearly in violation of Amendment 8 of the US Constitution.

Filed Under: #right2rest, Advocacy, Blog, Criminalization, Discrimination, Homeless Bill of Rights, Homelessness, Legal Defense, National Allies, Politics

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Audrey says

    September 17, 2015 at 9:23 am

    Well, it is good to know that there are some places that realize camping bans are not very effective but rather increase the issue. Now how many cities will actually look as this as an example or statistics as to how we must find other solutions to houselessness? Such things should be spoken of between governors of cities.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Footer

Instagram Feed

On August 11th, Newsom's "Care" Act passed out of On August 11th, Newsom's "Care" Act passed out of the Appropriations Committee. The bill was amended on the 15th and will be scheduled for a floor vote any time between August 17th and 31st. https://conta.cc/3dz2NzQ
Part 12... Infractions and Due Process Rights Ant Part 12...
Infractions and Due Process Rights 
Anti-homeless laws and ordinances and their application have, in fact, created a loophole that allows for the circumvention of a homeless person’s right to due process under law. The process by which homeless people face repeated incarceration generally follows this scenario: A homeless man is sleeping on the sidewalk. A local ordinance makes it illegal to do so. The man gets a ticket and is later arrested for not paying the ticket. He spends a couple of days in jail, and is just as homeless now as he was before, only now he has a criminal record. This was the case for many of the individuals interviewed by RWHP. One man relayed the familiar scenario, “I was sleeping in a tent in a hidden spot near the freeway. They gave me a ticket for trespassing. I don’t have money to pay it. I’ve never been in jail before. I keep to myself, but now they’re going to make me a convict just for sleeping.”
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT TALKING DOWN THE PEOPLES TOWMH SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT TALKING DOWN THE PEOPLES TOWMHOMES ENCAMPMENT https://www.instagram.com/tv/ChAT9N5jNTY/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

This morning @phillysheriff ‘s came and evicted our protest encampment to Save the UC Townhomes. When asked why they were doing it, Rochelle Bilal responded that she “felt compassion for the townhomes residents but was just doing my job”

Even if the tents are gone WE AINT GOIN NOWHERE‼️
Saturday AUGUST 27 — 9 am to 4pm Sunday AUGUST 2 Saturday AUGUST 27 — 9 am to 4pm
Sunday AUGUST 28 — 12:30pm to 4pm

Westminster Presbyterian Church
1300 N Street, Sacramento

https://wraphome.org/2022/08/02/sacramento-ca-advocates-community-summit-on-homelessness-august-27-28th/
California. (S)Care Court Hearing Tomorrow 8/3 Las California. (S)Care Court Hearing Tomorrow 8/3 Last Hearing before floor Vote
https://conta.cc/3vzRoWo
Part 11 ... California’s “anti-Okie” laws of Part 11 ...
California’s “anti-Okie” laws of the 1930s and the South’s Jim Crow laws in effect from the late 1800s to the 1950s are examples of the kinds of local laws overturned in previous generations. Yet, modern “quality of life” legislation and enforcement targeting homeless people can be found in communities across the nation.
The City Council postponed their vote on the 41.18 The City Council postponed their vote on the 41.18 expansion to August 2nd. If passed, this motion will add approximately 1,900 additional sites–a 376% increase in exclusionary zones across the city. 41.18 would then cover at least 88 sq miles (that’s 20% of the entire city).

Services Not Sweeps is urging EVERYONE to come to City Hall at 9:00am on August 2 and tell City Council that 41.18 is BAD POLICY and should be repealed.

When we fight, we win. 
But this fight isn’t over.

The community flooded City Hall inside and out on Wednesday to protest the expansion of 41.18 but the fight is not over. It’s clear that President Nury Martinez and friends weren’t prepared for our numbers and realized they were unable to rally their (few but loud) 41.18 supporters. Council delayed the vote to Tuesday August 2nd in an attempt to erode our momentum and stifle our voices. 
 
We won’t let that happen. The fight now is to keep the pressure on and show up next week!! See you next Tuesday 9am. Bring a friend.
 
WHO: You and your friends!
WHERE: City Hall, 200 N Spring St 
WHEN: Tuesday August 2nd at 9:00am
HOW: Read more details on our toolkit.
AGENDA ITEM 14 https://lacity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=102513
Part 10... In fact, however, enforcement is very m Part 10...
In fact, however, enforcement is very much impacted by both skin color and appearance. Local governments cannot legally discriminate against people strictly because they do not have housing. Federal protections prohibit local and state governments from removing people from their communities due to the color of their skin or economic/employment status.
Part 9... This nationwide pattern has escaped Civi Part 9... This nationwide pattern has escaped Civil Rights protections because on their face, these programs are not clearly discriminatory. Local laws are often drafted in such a way as to appear to apply equally to all people in a community.
Part 8... While certain communities highlight diff Part 8...
While certain communities highlight different controls at different times, often depending upon the outcome of local elections and legislative and court efforts, all have one primary common goal: to remove the presence and resulting impact of people without housing from local communities. As the Mayor of Las Vegas stated when she outlawed feeding people in city parks: “If we stop feeding them, they will leave.”
Load More... Follow on Instagram

Facebook Icon

Facebook Feed

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

Statewide fight against Newsom's "Care"-LESS Courts continues!

web-extract.constantcontact.com

Thank you to everyone who signed the open letter to Governor Newsom urging him to reconsider his CARE Court proposal. There were over 500 si...
3 days ago
View on Facebook
· Share
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email
View Comments
  • Likes: 0
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 0

Comment on Facebook

Twitter Icon

Twitter Feed

16 Aug 1559579585251102720

On August 11th, Newsom's "Care" Act passed out of the Appropriations Committee. The bill was amended on the 15th and will be scheduled for a floor vote any time between August 17th and 31st. https://conta.cc/3JXM4SF
https://conta.cc/3QOytPM

Image for the Tweet beginning: On August 11th, Newsom's "Care" Twitter feed image.
Reply on Twitter 1559579585251102720 Retweet on Twitter 1559579585251102720 1 Like on Twitter 1559579585251102720 0 Twitter 1559579585251102720
16 Aug 1559459020678713344

#NoCARECourt KPFK Lawyers Guild Show "CARE" court Wed. 8/17 - 2-3pm - WRAP

Image for twitter card

#NoCARECourt KPFK Lawyers Guild Show "CARE" court Wed. 8/17 - 2-3pm - WRAP

Tune in Wed., Aug. 17 from 2-3pm on KPFK 90.7 FM for this week’s edition of the Lawyers Guild Show. First...

wraphome.org

Reply on Twitter 1559459020678713344 Retweet on Twitter 1559459020678713344 0 Like on Twitter 1559459020678713344 1 Twitter 1559459020678713344
15 Aug 1559254754945015808

Thank you to everyone who signed the open letter to Governor Newsom urging him to reconsider his CARE Court proposal. There were over 500 signatories!

Image for twitter card

Sacramento, CA. Open Letter to Governor Newsom re: Opposition to CARE Court - WRAP

Dear Allies, Thank you to everyone who signed the open letter to Governor Newsom urging him to reconsider his CA...

wraphome.org

Reply on Twitter 1559254754945015808 Retweet on Twitter 1559254754945015808 5 Like on Twitter 1559254754945015808 7 Twitter 1559254754945015808
15 Aug 1559254073630527488

"Tiny homes" not a homeless solution in any location via @TheMiamiTimes

Image for twitter card

"Tiny homes" not a homeless solution in any location

While the bad reviews of Miami City Commissioner Joe Carollo's 'tiny homes' proposal for Virginia Key, now catching ...

www.miamitimesonline.com

Reply on Twitter 1559254073630527488 Retweet on Twitter 1559254073630527488 4 Like on Twitter 1559254073630527488 9 Twitter 1559254073630527488
Retweet on Twitter WRAP Retweeted
11 Aug 1557824221996130304

Join us and our friends @APTPaction to say NO to C.A.R.E Court next Thursday, August 18th for a teach-in followed by feeding the people, and a march!

RSVP on Facebook here: https://fb.me/e/1CFrMznNP

Image for the Tweet beginning: Join us and our friends Twitter feed image.
Reply on Twitter 1557824221996130304 Retweet on Twitter 1557824221996130304 15 Like on Twitter 1557824221996130304 20 Twitter 1557824221996130304
Load More...

YouTube icon

Youtube Code

Our Channel

Copyright © 2022 Western Regional Advocacy Project WRAP · Log in