Brief Case Law Summaries Related to Homelessness
The Washington State Court of Appeals held in a criminal case that an unhoused person’s tent or shelter and its contents are entitled to constitutional privacy protection under the Washington State Constitution, Article I, section 7, and thereby protected from unreasonable searches.
Martin involved the issuance of criminal citations against unhoused individuals for violating the City of Boise’s anti-camping ordinances. In Martin, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the United States Constitution, under the Either Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, prohibits imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property on homeless individuals who could not obtain shelter. This is because 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.”
However, Martin does not require that a city provide sufficient shelter for homeless individuals and a city need not allow individuals to sit, lie or sleep on the streets at any time or at any place. The Martin opinion identified that ordinances prohibiting right-of-way obstruction or the erection of certain types of structures for shelter and ordinances prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations may be constitutionally permissible, regardless of available shelter, since other public space would still be available.
In Grants Pass, the Ninth Circuit was presented with the question of whether to extend Martin, which involved the issuance of criminal citations, to the issuance of civil citations by the City of Grants Pass. Grant Pass passed several ordinances related to the regulation of sleeping outside, which effectively made it impossible to sleep in a vehicle or outside with any form of bedding or shelter on public land. A violation of the ordinances resulted in fines, which if unpaid would escalate to an exclusion order and ultimately criminal trespass. Three homeless individuals argued the ordinances were unconstitutional under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the City’s ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, holding that a “local government cannot avoid [Martin] by issuing civil citations that, later, become criminal offenses.” The Court stated: “Imposing a few extra steps before criminalizing the very acts Martin explicitly says cannot be criminalized does not cure the anti-camping ordinances’ Eighth Amendment infirmity.”
Notably, the Ninth Circuit did not address ordinances that solely provide civil infractions. The court expressly clarified that “our decision does not address a regime of purely civil infractions, nor does it prohibit the City from attempting other solutions to the homelessness issue.”
The Grants Pass ordinances and Boise ordinances similarly prohibited sleeping and camping in public places on a citywide basis. Neither Martin nor Grants Pass prevent the City from prohibiting lying or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations, obstructing the right-of-way, or erecting certain structures.
The Washington Supreme Court held that homestead rights protect a person’s residence, which may be a vehicle, and essential possessions from judgments and liens by debt-holders and other creditors (up to a certain dollar amount). See RCW Chapter 6.13. However, homestead rights do not prevent issuance of a ticket or impoundment of a vehicle. Instead, homestead rights protect the homestead from creditors, so the rights protect a vehicle owner if the City attempts to collect a debt from the owner for impoundment/towing. The City needs to ensure that homestead vehicles are not sold at auction.
The Court greatly also expanded the circumstances under which an individual may bring an “excessive fines” challenge to a civil infraction under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the excessive fines provisions of the Washington State Constitution, Article I, section 14 (“Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted.”), extending it to civil infractions and vehicle impoundments.
This is an example of a federal case holding that clearing homeless encampments must meet certain due process requirements (there are state court decisions that suggest similar holdings). In Levan, the Ninth Circuit held a municipality may not summarily remove the property of a homeless person without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Unattended property does not necessarily mean it is abandoned, and so a municipality may not summarily destroy seized property it should be maintained in a secure location for a certain period of time.
Note: In Washington, chapter 63.32 RCW requires that certain requirements be followed when any personal property comes into the possession of city police, including a requirement that it be held for 60 days.
This webpage was last updated on October 31, 2023.