Supreme Court won’t hear case about homeless

Decision won’t help problem says Lodi official

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up an appeal in the case of Martin v. Boise, which addresses whether the city in Idaho can ticket homeless people for “camping” in public, filings showed Monday.

Advocates for people who are homeless considered the decision a victory as news came down. Theane Evangelis, Boise’s lead counsel on the case, disagreed, saying in a statement that “the 9th Circuit’s decision ultimately harms the very people it purports to protect.”

The case was being watched closely in Lodi. City Manager Steve Schwabauer said the court’s decision doesn’t help local jurisdictions in California facing an increase in homeless populations.

“It’s no secret that this has been a concern to the council, as well as a concern to the entire community,” he said. “This really isn’t any relief for the city in terms of enforcing trespassing laws on public property.”

At its Aug. 7 meeting, the Lodi City Council directed staff file an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledging support for the city of Boise.

“Obviously we’re concerned about the impact this will have on our parks, particularly parks in residential areas,” Schwabauer said. “I don’t think the courts have given any consideration to those people who live near city parks and how they will be affected.”

In July, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office told supervisors that homeless individuals were not going to be arrested just because they are homeless.

The District Attorney’s Office said while it isn’t a crime to be homeless, there are members of the homeless community who commit crimes.

If they are arrested by local law enforcement officials for committing crimes, the District Office said it would use its discretion to prosecute.

At the center of the Martin v. Boise case was Boise’s ordinance, first adopted in 1922, that prohibited people from sleeping in public spaces.

Last September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cities cannot prosecute people for sleeping on the streets if there is nowhere else for them to go, saying that violates the Eighth Amendment and amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

The city appealed it to the Supreme Court because “if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, then cities will not have the tools they need to prevent a humanitarian crisis on their own streets,” Mayor David Bieter said in an August news release. The city has issued seven camping citations this year.

That 9th Circuit ruling now stands, but Evangelis said the city “will be evaluating next steps” as the case returns to District Court.