Homeless Criminalization Prosecutions
Homeless Criminalization – Overview
Homeless criminalization refers to laws and prosecutions that target homeless individuals for conduct often tied to survival, such as:
Sleeping in public spaces
Panhandling or begging
Loitering
Vagrancy
Legal Context:
These laws are often challenged under U.S. Constitutional provisions, especially the Eighth Amendment (protection against cruel and unusual punishment) and the First Amendment (panhandling as free speech).
Some cases reach federal courts where criminalization intersects with civil rights.
1. Martin v. City of Boise (2019)
Facts:
The city of Boise, Idaho, prosecuted homeless individuals for sleeping in public parks. The plaintiffs argued that criminalizing involuntary sleeping violated their constitutional rights.
Charges:
Criminal trespass
Ordinance violations for camping in public
Legal Reasoning:
The Ninth Circuit held that punishing homeless people for sleeping in public when no shelter is available violates the Eighth Amendment.
The court emphasized that the state cannot criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.
Outcome:
Boise was required to stop enforcing laws against public sleeping where shelter beds were unavailable, setting a landmark precedent protecting homeless rights.
2. Jones v. City of Los Angeles (2006)
Facts:
The city arrested homeless individuals for sitting, lying, or sleeping on sidewalks.
Charges:
Loitering
Obstructing sidewalks
Legal Reasoning:
The Ninth Circuit ruled that criminal enforcement violated the Fourth and Eighth Amendments if individuals had no alternative housing.
Arresting homeless people for “involuntary sitting or lying” constituted punishment for status rather than conduct.
Outcome:
The court required the city to consider the lack of shelter before prosecuting, influencing national policies on homeless criminalization.
3. Pottinger v. City of Miami (1992)
Facts:
Miami prosecuted homeless individuals for sleeping, panhandling, and loitering. Many were arrested repeatedly for survival activities.
Charges:
Vagrancy
Disorderly conduct
Loitering
Legal Reasoning:
The court held that these arrests violated the Eighth Amendment because they punished individuals for being homeless.
Miami’s enforcement disproportionately affected the poor, creating a cycle of incarceration without addressing root causes.
Outcome:
A consent decree was issued requiring Miami to provide social services instead of incarceration, establishing one of the first major cases addressing homeless criminalization.
4. Bell v. City of Boise (2010)
Facts:
Bell was cited multiple times for sleeping on public sidewalks. He argued that the city lacked sufficient shelter space, making the citations unconstitutional.
Charges:
Trespassing
Violation of city camping ordinances
Legal Reasoning:
Reinforced Martin v. Boise, emphasizing that enforcement against homeless individuals cannot criminalize unavoidable survival activities.
Outcome:
The court ruled in favor of Bell, reinforcing that cities must accommodate the reality of homelessness when enforcing public order laws.
5. Jones v. City of Philadelphia (2012)
Facts:
Philadelphia criminalized aggressive panhandling and sidewalk obstruction, targeting homeless individuals.
Charges:
Aggressive panhandling
Public nuisance
Legal Reasoning:
Plaintiffs argued violations of the First Amendment (free speech) and the Eighth Amendment.
Court ruled that ordinances must distinguish between coercive solicitation and lawful speech.
Outcome:
Philadelphia had to revise panhandling laws, allowing non-aggressive solicitation while criminalizing only coercive or threatening behavior.
6. Shobe v. City of San Diego (2015)
Facts:
San Diego enforced laws against sleeping in public parks. Many homeless individuals faced arrest nightly.
Charges:
Trespassing
Ordinance violations
Legal Reasoning:
Court considered whether the city had adequate shelter options.
Ruled that criminal enforcement without alternatives violated the Eighth Amendment and constituted “punishment for status.”
Outcome:
The city was required to expand shelter access and limit arrests, highlighting systemic reforms over punitive measures.
7. Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2006)
Facts:
Police in Los Angeles confiscated homeless individuals’ personal property, including tents and clothing, while they slept in public areas.
Charges:
N/A (civil rights case)
Legal Reasoning:
Court ruled that seizing personal property without notice or due process violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Reinforced that enforcement policies must balance public order with constitutional protections.
Outcome:
City policies were revised to require notice and storage options for confiscated property, protecting homeless individuals’ rights.
Key Takeaways from Homeless Criminalization Cases
Eighth Amendment Protections: Punishing individuals for being homeless (status) is unconstitutional.
Shelter Availability Matters: Cities cannot criminalize survival activities if adequate shelter is unavailable.
First Amendment Considerations: Panhandling laws must differentiate aggressive vs. non-aggressive solicitation.
Civil Rights Enforcement: Confiscation of property without due process violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Policy Shift Toward Services: Courts increasingly favor rehabilitation and social services over incarceration.
RELATED Blog
