Are anti-camping laws by cities unconstitutional?

YellowSnow

The DOJ argued yes in 2015 (thanks a lot Obama) in Bell vs Boise which the US 9th District Court Dismissed.

YellowSnow

No

This is the definition of insanity...

Statement of Interest of the United States, Bell v. Boise, No. 1:09-cv-00540, ECF No. 276 (D. Idaho Aug. 6, 2015)
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of their position on the constitutionality of anti-camping ordinances in this federal lawsuit. In the statement, the DOJ argues that laws criminalizing camping or sleeping outdoors are unconstitutional when there is either (1) inadequate shelter space for a city’s homeless population or (2) shelter restrictions preventing certain individuals from accessing shelter. This is because sleeping is a necessary, unavoidable function of being alive, and the DOJ argues when people have nowhere else to do so, their choice to camp or sleep outside cannot be seen as voluntary. The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars criminalizing an individual’s status. The DOJ argues that involuntary conduct, such as sleeping outdoors when no reasonable access to shelter space exists, is akin to criminalizing status and therefore cruel and unusual punishment.

UW_Doog_Bot

No

Statement of Interest of the United States, Bell v. Boise, No. 1:09-cv-00540, ECF No. 276 (D. Idaho Aug. 6, 2015)
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of their position on the constitutionality of anti-urination ordinances in this federal lawsuit. In the statement, the DOJ argues that laws criminalizing urination outdoors are unconstitutional when there is either (1) inadequate public bathrooms for a city’s homeless population or (2) bathroom restrictions preventing certain individuals from accessing bathrooms. This is because urinating is a necessary, unavoidable function of being alive, and the DOJ argues when people have nowhere else to do so, their choice to urinate outside cannot be seen as voluntary. The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars criminalizing an individual’s status. The DOJ argues that involuntary conduct, such as urinating outdoors when no reasonable access to bathroom space exists, is akin to criminalizing status and therefore cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm all for it!

YellowSnow

No

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Statement of Interest of the United States, Bell v. Boise, No. 1:09-cv-00540, ECF No. 276 (D. Idaho Aug. 6, 2015)
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of their position on the constitutionality of anti-urination ordinances in this federal lawsuit. In the statement, the DOJ argues that laws criminalizing urination outdoors are unconstitutional when there is either (1) inadequate public bathrooms for a city’s homeless population or (2) bathroom restrictions preventing certain individuals from accessing bathrooms. This is because urinating is a necessary, unavoidable function of being alive, and the DOJ argues when people have nowhere else to do so, their choice to urinate outside cannot be seen as voluntary. The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars criminalizing an individual’s status. The DOJ argues that involuntary conduct, such as urinating outdoors when no reasonable access to bathroom space exists, is akin to criminalizing status and therefore cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm all for it!

I'm needing to do some letter writing to my Seattle Councilmember and need to push though this BS line of reasoning. Seems to me the state has a compelling public health and safety concern as it relates unrestricted camping by homeless people in public spaces.

Pitchfork51

If you aren't a dirty poor piece of shit do what you want.

If you are....do it somewhere I can't see


Signed,


Everyone