Report to Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, August 06, 2024
Consent
SUBJECT:
Title
CONSIDER AN UPDATE REGARDING ENFORCEABILITY OF CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON V. JOHNSON (CITY COUNCIL)
Body
I. SUMMARY
This report transmits an update to the City Council, with great news for the City of Carson.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, 144 S. Ct. 2202 (2024). The Court held that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court decision abrogated the prior decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (2019), which had held that criminal enforcement of such ordinances as to homeless individuals violated the Eighth Amendment any time there was a greater number of homeless individuals in the jurisdiction than the number of available beds in shelters.
To be clear, the Martin v. City of Boise decision and its available beds requirement is no longer valid law due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass.
The City Attorney’s office, on behalf of several cities, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the the Supreme Court in the Grants Pass case. An amicus curiae brief, or amicus brief, is a legal document submitted by a person or group who is not a party to a case but has a strong interest in the matter. The term amicus curiae is Latin for "friend of the court."
The amicus brief submitted by the City Attorney’s office successfully advocated for the outcome that was ultimately reached by the Supreme Court in siding with the City of Grants Pass.
Despite the Martin v. Boise decision of the Ninth Circuit in 2019, the Mayor and City Council maintained Carson’s ordinances prohibiting camping in public places, as well as other Carson Municipal Code (CMC) provisions relating to seizure of personal property in connection with issuance of a misdemeanor citation and restricting overnight parking of oversized or inoperable vehicles.
Specifically, among other related regulations: (i) CMC Section 4146 provides it is unlawful for any person to camp in any public park, any public street, alley, lane, public right of-way, or any public parking lot or public area; and (ii) CMC Section 4147 provides it is unlawful for any person to sleep in any public park during the period of time from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., any public street, alley, lane, or public right-of-way, and any public parking lot or public area. Violations are punishable as misdemeanors or infractions.
The Mayor and City Council did so for the protection of public health, safety and welfare in Carson, and based on a belief that the Martin v. City of Boise decision was wrong and would ultimately be overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Grants Pass decision confirms the City Council’s belief was correct. Now, the law is clear that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause does not preclude the City from fully enforcing CMC anti-camping regulations.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. RECEIVE and FILE this report.
Body
III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate and that is consistent with applicable laws.
IV. BACKGROUND
The challenged City of Grants pass ordinance included prohibitions on sleeping on public sidewalks, streets or alleyways, camping in public places, and camping and overnight parking in City parks. The ordinances were enforced as follows: (1) First offense: $295 fine, increasing to $537 if unpaid; (2) Second offense within 1 year: exclusion order barring the violator from the public space for 30 days; (3) Violation of exclusion order: 30 days in jail + $1,250 fine.
The Supreme Court found the City of Grant Pass’ punishments for violation of its ordinance were neither cruel nor unusual under a historical analysis of the Eighth Amendment.
The Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment allows the government to criminalize conduct that flows from a condition the defendant might be powerless to change, and observed that the Eight Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question of what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question of whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.
The Court noted that other legal doctrines and constitutional provisions could work to protect those in our criminal justice system from a conviction, and mentioned that states and cities are free as well to add additional substantive protections. For example, the Court mentioned an existing Oregon state statue imposing an objectiveness reasonableness standard (e.g., time and location-based restrictions) on all anti-camping ordinances in that state, and noted that nothing in the Court’s decision prevents states and cities from going further and declining to criminalize public camping altogether. However, California has not done so.
The Court did not decide the issue of whether the City of Grants Pass ordinance’s fines were excessive under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines clause, and invited the Ninth Circuit to consider that issue on remand.
V. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
VI. EXHIBITS
None.
Prepared by: Sunny Soltani, City Attorney