City Ordinance Is Unconstitutional Because Punishing Homeless People For Sleeping In Public Places Is Cruel And Unusual Punishment

In Jones v. City of Los Angeles (— F.3d —, 2006 WL 988301, C.A.9 (Cal.), Apr. 14, 2006), the United States Court of Appeals considered a constitutional challenge to a city ordinance that made it a crime to sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public way, and imposed fines and jail terms on violators.

The Court found that because there are more homeless people in Los Angeles than indoor places for them to sleep, and that because sitting, lying and sleeping are unavoidable human acts, the ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Facts

Six homeless people (“Plaintiffs”) in Los Angeles (“City”) filed a lawsuit after being arrested and fined for violating the City’s Municipal Code Section 41.18(d), which banned sitting, lying or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks. They alleged their constitutional rights were violated, and asked that the City be prospectively enjoined from enforcing the ordinance.

The district court granted judgment in favor of the City, reasoning that the ordinance did not punish the homeless people for their status of homelessness, but rather for their specific conduct of sleeping in a place where it was illegal to do so. Plaintiffs appealed.

Decision

The appellate court undertook a lengthy review of the history of the Los Angeles “Skid row” area and the problem of homelessness in the City, as part of a determination as to whether; first, Plaintiffs had standing to bring their case; and second, whether the ordinance actually violated their constitutional rights.

On the question of standing, the Court found that Plaintiffs had demonstrated both past injuries and a real and immediate threat of future injury from the City ordinance. Reviewing the specific circumstances of each Plaintiff, the Court found that the ordinance created the threat of fine and incarceration, the loss of personal liberty, and the loss of what little property they possessed. Having shown real injury and the threat of future injury, the Court said, Plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit.

The Court then reviewed case law on the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The combined message from Robinson v. California (370 U.S. 660 (1962)) and in Powell v. Texas (392 U.S. 514 (1968)), is that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.

The Court said there was undisputed evidence that at the time they were arrested, Plaintiffs had no choice but to be on the streets, because the number of homeless in Los Angeles far exceeded the space available for them in shelters. Therefore, by criminalizing sitting, lying and sleeping, which are unavoidable human activities, the City in effect criminalized Plaintiffs’ status as homeless people.

The Court ruled that “so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles than the number of available beds,” the City may not enforce section 41.18(d). The trial court judgment was reversed and remanded, and summary judgment granted to Plaintiffs.

Legal Alert Email Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.