unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside

[c_hasbeen]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/do...m-sleeping-outside/ar-BBlIx8B?ocid=spartandhp

here is the article

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe WP', Arial, sans-serif]"...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 [/font][font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe WP', Arial, sans-serif]itself[/font][font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe WP', Arial, sans-serif] in situations where people simply have nowhere else to sleep. From the DOJ's filing:[/font]
[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe WP', Arial, sans-serif]"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...."[/font]

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Interesting.

BUT . . .

I'm not sure how much it will really apply to us.

I seem to recall reading an article about - I wanna say AZ or NM.  The court there REQUIRED the cops to offer transportation to a shelter before they could make an arrest.  But if the person REFUSED to go along to the shelter, THEN they could arrest him.

So we're sleeping in our van somewhere where there is an ordinance against it.  Cops come along at o-dark-30 and wake us up and say:  "You can't sleep in a van.  Come along with us and we'll take you to a shelter."  Now the choice is go to the shelter or go to jail.

We'll have to see how this all plays out.

Regards
John

 

[Ella1]

I have known people who live homeless due to either choice or mental health. The shelters aren't open year round.

 

[DannyB1954]

I just read an article on MSN.com about it. It says people sleeping in the open. I don't know that is the same as living in a $10,000 van. The prosecutor could argue that you have the resources to rent a room, and it is by your choice not necessity, that you are sleeping in a vehicle.
I think it really comes down to the right to the pursuit of happiness, but this ruling doesn't address that.

 

[66788]

Remember that unless the underlying activity is a fundamental right in the Constitution, the court's test will be the "Rational Basis Test". Was there a rational basis for enacting the law? If so, it's constitutional.

The Rational Basis Test is the lowest level of scrutiny offered for any constitutional challenge.

 

[LeeRevell]

How great are our Founding Fathers!  They actually had the foresight to include in the Constitution and Bill of Rights provision for homeless and vandwellers!  Those guys were geniuses!  

 

[offroad]

so does this mean that we just all claim we are homeless (for that week) and get out of jail card is invoked? Can I claim I am homeless on BLM land, and they leave me alone? So many law ways to trip up a person; and waste federal money prosecuting them (but paying lawyers a nice government salary and time to spent chasing someone).

 

[TMG51]

Interesting.

BUT . . .

I'm not sure how much it will really apply to us.

I seem to recall reading an article about - I wanna say AZ or NM.  The court there REQUIRED the cops to offer transportation to a shelter before they could make an arrest.  But if the person REFUSED to go along to the shelter, THEN they could arrest him.

So we're sleeping in our van somewhere where there is an ordinance against it.  Cops come along at o-dark-30 and wake us up and say:  "You can't sleep in a van.  Come along with us and we'll take you to a shelter."  Now the choice is go to the shelter or go to jail.

We'll have to see how this all plays out.

Regards
John

You don't think he'd simply let you drive elsewhere yourself?

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

You don't think he'd simply let you drive elsewhere yourself?

I think probably most places, yes.

But there are some places that are practically bankrupt.  And it's an observed fact that some places run speed traps specifically because they want the revenue that brings in from outsiders.  So I could conceive of some places where the cops would be under orders to roust you, tell you you have to go to a shelter, and then arrest you when you refuse just so you could be fined.  They need the money.  And you're an outsider who doesn't live there, vote there, or pay taxes there.

But it's a well known fact here that I'm paranoid, so feel free to disparage that theory.  I don't mind.

Regards
John

 

[offroad]

And if they direct you to a shelter, can you park in shelter parking lot? And have that be equivalent?

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

And if they direct you to a shelter, can you park in shelter parking lot? And have that be equivalent?

Wouldn't you still be "sleeping in your vehicle"?  And how would they make any money off you in that case?

Regards
John

 

[Canine]

Very interesting. Haven't actually thought it through like that. Something to keep in mind should a conflict arise. Definitely would need to apply that -or not- on a case by case basis.

 

[DannyB1954]

I was once living on a boat when the census came through. I was classified as a financially advantaged homeless person. You can live on a multi million dollar yacht, and still be homeless. So it isn't always a matter of income or need. It is a matter of choice. If living out of a van brings you happiness, then under the Constitution you should be able to do so, as long as others are not harmed in the process.
A lot of local laws are not constitutional, but nobody seems to have the will or resources to fight them. The sad part is that the Supreme Court can choose not to hear the case. Anyone can violate the Constitution and get away with it, if the court does not wish to hear the case. I think it should be mandated that those cases be heard.

The argument is there is no way to hear every case with there being only one Federal Supreme Court, but there is no real reason we couldn't have more than one Supreme Court. They could be set up under a regional basis. Yes there are State Supreme Courts, but they only address their own States Constitution. If a particular State has nothing about the pursuit of happiness in their constitution, the case is not valid to be heard.

 

[Iggy]

I think I'll keep stealth parking, just in case.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

The argument is there is no way to hear every case with there being only one Federal Supreme Court, but there is no real reason we couldn't have more than one Supreme Court. They could be set up under a regional basis. Yes there are State Supreme Courts, but they only address their own States Constitution. If a particular State has nothing about the pursuit of happiness in their constitution, the case is not valid to be heard.

It is not possible to have more than one "supreme" court.  The way the system works, If the Federal District court in, say, NY hears a case and rules "A", then "A" is binding on all lower courts in it's district.  It is NOT, however, binding on other Federal District courts, so the Federal District court in, say, CA, could hear a very similar case and rule "B", so now you have "A" being the law of the land in some parts of the country, and "B" being the law of the land in other parts of the country.  That's when the Supreme Court steps in.  The whole point of having a SUPREME court is to settle disputes between lower courts.

Regards
John

 

[DannyB1954]

And if the supreme Court chooses not to hear a case? (It happens all the time you know). The one or more districts could still have laws that are not constitutional. Where does the victim of the oppressive law go? Back when there was say 300,000 people in the USA, Nine Judges may have been enough.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

The Supreme Court REVIEWS lower court decisions.  It receives about 10,000 requests a year.  My understanding is that they spend most of their time reviewing those requests. EVERY justice reads every request, and then they meet once a week to discuss them.  If any THREE of the nine judges thinks the case is worth reviewing, then it is put on the docket for oral arguments.  If not, then the lower court ruling is simply upheld.  So in effect, you HAD your review, and less than three of the nine judges thought your case had any merit.  It's not like your case was ignored. If seven or more of the judges thought your case had no merit, you were going to lose it anyway.

Regards
John

BTW, the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[Canine]

Optimistic Paranoid, that is extremely interesting. Like a Grand Jury of sorts. I'm sure some people get neglected, but that does seem to be a fairly reasonable way to address issues from lower courts. Having a full blown Supreme Court review for every single issue would be unreasonable in terms of time and money. Perhaps there is a better way to address issues; this is food for thought. Doubt that I'm smart enough to figure that one out, though! The legal system can be quite complex.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

The truth of the matter is, on various occasions individual justices have stated that the vast majority of the cases they have to review have no merit.

One of my old political science professors described it as the Sore Loser Syndrome.

Somebody loses a court case and doesn't like it, so he gets up on his high horse and declares:  "This is an outrage!  I won't stand for it!  I'll appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to!"

I actually remember reading, many years ago, about a clever lawyer who appealed a TRAFFIC TICKET all the way to the Supreme Court, and they actually accepted the case just so they could publicly rip him a new one for wasting their time over a traffic ticket.  They were hoping the negative publicity would help cut back on the amount of non-sense they had to wade through.

Regards
John

 

[T.he I.nvisible M.an]

What about the over the road truckers? It seems to me that they sleep next to the road, in parking lots, in rest areas or pretty much anywhere they stop, not to mention the ones that have "sleepers" built in are fairly obvious...