homeless, and urban camping rights

[Jhanananda]

The city of Worcester, where I live, just lost a major lawsuit trying to criminalize homelessness/panhandling. Ironically I remember Worcester listed in one of the almanacs you posted earlier. Although now they're being countersued (which I don't approve of) for 1.2 million which would extract that cash from the (relatively poor) city's taxpayers and give it to the opposing side's lawyers.

The fact is the supreme court supports the poor and the homeless, so every municipality that criminalizes the poor and homeless is destined to be sued.  And, I hope they are until it hurts, so they stop doing it, and work on solving the problems of the poor and the homeless.

How distressing it is to hear of your problems with the officials, Jeffrey. Is the ticket for a fine?

Yes, I have a fine from the forest service for $125.  I expect that the judge will see that it was petty and drop the case, but I will have to drive to Flag Staff to deal with it.

I am not sure what the cost of the urban camping fine is, as the police officer neglected to give me the ticket, but I expect it will be $100 or more.  I expect it will be dropped as well, or I will have to find a lawyer who will sue the city.

[Michel]

Yes, I have a fine from the forest service for $125.  I expect that the judge will see that it was petty and drop the case, but I will have to drive to Flag Staff to deal with it.

I am not sure what the cost of the urban camping fine is, as the police officer neglected to give me the ticket, but I expect it will be $100 or more.  I expect it will be dropped as well, or I will have to find a lawyer who will sue the city.

What a pain. I'm sorry you have to deal with all this nonsense. It angers me.

[Jhanananda]

Yes, this is just the way life is for a mystic.

[Jhanananda]

Homeless Advocates Fight for the Right to Rest in Denver

Homelessness in Denver has grown 600 percent in the last 20 years , while the amount of emergency shelter beds has been stagnant. In October 2015, Denver Homeless Out Loud  (DHOL) occupied space at Sustainability Park and, financed through online donations, began constructing tiny homes for those experiencing homelessness. The group named the site Resurrection Village, in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign, which culminated in 1968 after King was assassinated. The historic campaign confronted economic inequality in the United States as demonstrators built tents outside the Capitol in Washington, DC, deeming the encampment “Resurrection City.

Just Released: Guidance for States on Aligning Efforts to End Chronic Homelessness & Implement Olmstead Mandate

Fulfilling the Dream: Aligning State Efforts to Implement Olmstead and End Chronic Homelessness from USICH provides seven key strategies to guide states in developing an action plan to achieve both an end to chronic homelessness and compliance with the community integration mandate issued through the Supreme Court ruling Olmstead v. LC.

Homeless camps intolerable, even in city of good intentions

During a tour of the new homeless shelter at Pier 80, Trent Rhorer offered up some blunt talk.

Rhorer is director of the city’s Human Services Agency, and no one in the city has been more involved in housing the homeless. Among other things, Rhorer helped spearhead then-Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Care Not Cash program.

But, Rhorer said, good intentions aren’t enough. We can’t continue to let homeless campgrounds proliferate.

“If someone is making a lifestyle choice,” Rhorer said, “whether rational or irrational, sometimes we have to make decisions for them. And that decision would be that it is safer, more healthy, and you would have access to services if you come inside with us.”

[Jhanananda]

Jailed for being homeless

On an overcast autumn morning, 21-year-old Joey Fiala sits on a sprawl of sleeping bags and blankets, watching Colorado’s prolonged summer yield to winter. Fiala, originally from Kansas City, Missouri, is among a group of homeless people who gather most days in Jefferson Park on the north end of the Old Town Square section in Fort Collins. Here, a grassy lot sidles up to a busy railroad track and serves as a sort of daytime rest stop for folks without shelter. The men and women socialize and sneak catnaps in between hustling for cash and shuttling around the community to make use of its spread-out resources. When night falls, however, residents without shelter rush to get out of sight. Groups disperse and individuals head off in pairs or on their own.

Ray Lyall, 57, homeless for two years, has worked with Denver Homeless Out Loud (DHOL) for the past 22 months. He was arrested on October 24, along with others working on DHOL’s Tiny Homes project. Since he was released from jail, he has been camping with a group at a site in Denver at 26th and Lawrence Streets, which was raided on December 3. Lyall says the camping ban is used to target people sleeping outside and give tickets for other offenses. “Can’t have anything under or over you,” he says, explaining the camping ban. “I can lay in the freezing snow but I can’t have anything on my back.”

More from Narratively and the Vera Institute of Justice: “Legal Perils of Homelessness”

Fort Collins, a college town at the base of the Rocky Mountain foothills, prohibits practices such as loitering, “misuse of public waters,” and “camping or pitching a tent without permission.” Being homeless here necessitates invisibility, and consequently, isolation. Things that offer safety and even comfort at night—tents or multi-person encampments—make hiding difficult, and often land homeless people in jail.

More from Narratively and the Vera Institute of Justice: “The Human Toll of Jail”

“I’ve been to jail twice for camping,” Fiala says between swigs of coffee and bites of a doughnut, pulling his jacket tight around his small frame.

“I’ve been in for camping and for trespassing,” chimes in Steve, who doesn’t give his last name. A dad with a perfect goatee and cheeks rosy from the incoming chill, Steve hesitates to offer more. But others in the group nod in agreement.

“Yeah, I got ticketed twice for sleeping under the Linden Street Bridge,” Fiala says, jumping back in. “I was sick, sleeping on a mattress under the bridge, and they woke me up and gave me a ticket. I balled it up and threw it in their face. ‘F— you! I’m not gonna pay that. I can’t pay that.’ So I ended up in jail for failure to appear.”

Recent years have seen a surge of policing efforts throughout Colorado targeting those without shelter. Numerous communities have banned panhandling, camping, or sleeping in cars on public property. Loitering and trespassing laws prevent homeless individuals from having a safe place to rest—or options for washing up or using a bathroom. Violators face fines of $100 or more, an expense that quickly adds up for repeat offenders, landing many with warrants and, eventually, jail time. (Officials in Fort Collins have said they are looking into proposals that would allow people to sleep outside in certain places.)

According to the 2015 report “No Right to Rest: Criminalizing Homeless in Colorado,” more than half of the state’s homeless population has been in jail for minor infractions.

Fiala has been homeless about three years, or pretty much his entire adult life. When he first moved to Fort Collins with his then-girlfriend, they slept in their car. “But,” he sputters, in sequential bursts of frustration, “she cheated on me….She wrecked [our car].” He dunks a doughnut in his rapidly cooling cup of coffee and shudders. “You got a cigarette?”

Wes Hammond, a middle-aged man who has been listening quietly, suddenly plunges into the exchange. Hammond has been homeless on and off for much of his life. Born in Kentucky, he lived briefly in Tennessee before heading west. “I hitchhiked for three days to Colorado and this guy picked me up, asked if I wanted to work on a ranch,” he says. “So I did, up in the mountains, but I got tired of that, so I built a bike and I rode it off that mountain.”

He arrived in Fort Collins in 2010, initially finding stability in a relationship. When that “blew up” a year ago, he found himself back on the streets.

“I’ve had three camping tickets, two trespassing tickets, open container, parks violation, and urinating in public,” he claims. “My fines come to $2,009….I just got out of jail last night. Just one night this time. Failure to appear. Tacked on a $50 fine.” He takes a drag off the spliff that’s been floating around the circle and shakes his head ruefully. “I won’t be able to pay it. And all my stuff’s there at the police station. I can’t get to it.”

Steve, eyeing the joint, chimes in once more. “You better be careful with that. We may be in Colorado, but our house doesn’t have any walls,” he says, referring to the state’s legalization of marijuana use in private, but not in public spaces. As with open alcohol containers and intoxication, smoking cannabis is permitted only for those with the means to do so behind some sort of closed door. Individuals who lack shelter automatically miss out on key benefits afforded by seclusion. The very invisibility they seek when scattering at night is almost impossible to come by without the security of a safe and private place to rest.

[Jhanananda]

Homeless in Prescott: Former scientist develops alternative fuel system as means to survive

Originally Published: January 16, 2016 6 a.m.

For Jeff Brooks, a perfect day is one where he goes to sleep to the sound of howling coyotes and awakes to chirping birds or the sight of a doe herding her fawn.

The whispers of nature feed his soul; he much prefers tranquility and solitude over traffic and people.

At 62, Brooks is retired, but not by choice and not with the resources that draw so many retirees to Prescott.

The trim, long-bearded Tucson native doesn't camp in a luxury, high-tech motor home equipped with creature comforts and necessities such as beds, closets, kitchen and bathroom. Rather, he sleeps on a donated mattress inside a 1983 diesel-fuel Chevrolet van he bought nine years ago for $1,200. A makeshift kitchen behind the passenger seat he rescued from a dumpster.

He camps not as a vacation, but as a way of life. He is one of Prescott's homeless.

Sitting at a park bench in downtown's Granite Creek Park, a place where he often spends part of his day as he claims it offers the autonomy and privacy he craves, Brooks' scientific acuity is evident as he articulates the details of the alternative fuel system he uses to operate his van.

On his resume, Brooks lists his venture, the Great Western Vehicle, as his ongoing research science experiment. He rents a warehouse in Prescott Valley to continue his alternative fuel exploration.

Brooks' research and engineering knowledge dates back to his early adult years when he spent a year working as a research technician for Chevron in California. Articulate, and almost professor-like, Brooks is clear he long hoped to resurrect a life started in an abusive, alcohol-fueled childhood by virtue of a superior intellect that enabled him to earn three undergraduate college degrees. His ambition was to become a successful entrepreneur.

Much to his chagrin, the twists and turns of his life journey have forced him to become a self-sufficient survivalist; he chronicles a series of life setbacks that have left him with limited choices.

"This wasn't a choice for me!" said the twice divorced father of two adult children, aged 35 and 27.

In his young teen years, Brooks traveled the world with an emotionally distant father who when he graduated high school in southern New Jersey gave him $200 and the keys to a 1972 Ford Maverick.

"He told me to go and have a nice life," Brooks recalled. "I didn't hear from him again for 10 years."

So Brooks started applying to colleges, and ended up attending Drexel University in Pennsylvania. His father picked up the tab for some of the tuition, but he worked as a janitor and other odd jobs to pay his living expenses. In his second year, Brooks said he found it impossible to study calculus and physics "while working full-time just to live."

He headed back to the Southwest, enrolling in various college courses both in Arizona and San Francisco before he married and started to raise a family. He eventually landed a job in the food processing industry as a quality control technician.

Always interested in fuel production, Brooks started hunting for jobs in fuel research. He was beyond thrilled to land the job with Chevron he saw as the catalyst for only good things to come.

With that year-long assignment done, Brooks returned to Tucson. He embarked on career in optical science and computer technology, including some high-tech, space and defense-oriented projects at the University of Arizona where he continued to take courses to complete his undergraduate education.

From there, Brooks entered the private technology sector. In 1990, Brooks opened his own computer business, the Mac Doctor. The six-employee business stayed afloat for eight years. After closing, he worked independently for another decade. But he admits he was financially strapped.

Then came a domestic setback: a dispute with his former wives over child support.

Even though he said he always supported his children, with the two living with him for several years, Brooks said found himself in front of a judge struggling to come up with money he didn't have.

He couldn't afford the $10,000 for a lawyer. His financial life became all the more precarious.

For a time, Brooks cobbled together some short-lived contracting jobs, but nothing that equaled his expertise.

"After 30 years of experience in computer technology, and my degrees, I could not find a job anywhere. I was applying for 100 jobs a day on the Internet, and after two years of "No, no no" I ran out of resources."

He, too, admit he was succumbing to a sense of futility.

Between 2005 and 2010 Brooks said he was able to do some archaeology digs, as well as photographic exhibits for the National Parks Service. Again, though, the work was sporadic.

The final blow to his plans to become financially solvent again came when he was diagnosed with diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.

"Now I'm wandering through the maze of this strange disease," Brooks said.

In 2014, Arizona had some 10,495 homeless persons, according to the 2015 State of Homelessness in America report. The national rate of homelessness in America is 18.3 percent per 100,000 population; Arizona's rate is 15.8 percent per 100,000 population.

In Prescott, the 2015 Point-In-Time count taken at the end of January tracked 141 homeless individuals. Homeless advocates and social service agency officials say the number fluctuates considerably depending on the weather. The Coalition for Compassion and Justice reported serving 587 individuals in 2014.

Brooks said he is not an expert on the statistics. What he does know is that he is not alone in suffering a series of calamities that left him living in his van.

"That's how people end up homeless; a series of collapses that they just cannot overcome," Brooks said.

Volunteer homeless advocate Jean Lutz, who befriended Brooks several years ago while volunteering at the Open Door where Brooks regularly goes for meals, said he is fortunate he is "resourceful" but he also bears a bitterness and a sense of hopelessness that she wishes she could find a way to resolve.

Another advocate Daniel Mattson, who Brooks counts as a "hero" for his willingness to do whatever it takes to help those in need, suggested an admiration for Brooks who has tapped into his scientific abilities to create a fuel system that allows him to survive "pretty well" despite what others consider a non-traditional, even undesirable, lifestyle.

Unlike some of the area's homeless, Brooks said he has no malice toward the police, rarely encountering any problems because he strives to "stay under the radar."

He also doesn't fault the National Forest service employees who strictly enforce rules related to camping in the wilderness.

"Some of the homeless think they are entitled to be obnoxious ... they make it bad for the rest of us," Brooks said.

Brooks applauds the various organizations, and individuals, who do their best to help, including the Salvation Army where he is able to go and get a shower or have a meal.

"The people of Prescott are real generous and real patriotic," Brooks said.

Like some of his fellow homeless, Brooks does wish there were a more plentiful supply of affordable housing, as well as possibly a dedicated campground where the homeless would not be chased away.

On his monthly Social Security check of just over $700 a month, Brooks said he can barely afford to rent a warehouse space and maintain his van.

Asked if he would move into more permanent housing if it was available, Brooks said he might. But he might not.

With his diminishing health and post-traumatic stress disorder, Brooks said he isn't so sure he could live somewhere where he would have to interact with a large group of people.

"I'm a resourceful guy ... but I don't want to take any risks anymore," Brooks said.

His van allows him to "choose my neighbors, and those are mostly squirrels, deer, rabbits, birds and coyotes."

Follow Nanci Hutson on Twitter @HutsonNanci. Reach her at 928-445-3333 ext. 2041 or 928-642-6809.

[Alexander]

Great article, Jeffrey. And while I am always despairing with you when I hear of your troubles, the life you live remains an example of heroism, integrity and excellence.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Alexander, for posting your kind support.

Here is another interesting article:


City Takes A Stand Against Treating Homeless Camps Like Crime Rings

When homeless people cluster and set up stable tent camps, most American cities eventually send garbage men, cops, and social workers to tear the camps down, kick out the occupants, and even destroy their belongings. But in Indianapolis, such encampments are now protected from the sudden, destructive approach that so many other cities use to break up unsightly homeless communities.

Such camps are now shielded there by a bill passed in February on an overwhelming 23-2 vote. City officials must give a full 15 days’ notice to residents of any planned dismantling of a camp, a far longer lead time than is typical in such efforts. The city is never allowed to destroy residents’ personal property, as is common when local leaders opt for a crackdown. And the city can’t tear down a camp at all unless there are enough open housing units and sufficient resources for social services organizations to immediately absorb all its residents — a provision that can be suspended if Indianapolis declares a homelessness emergency.

[Frederick]

I, too, find this sad. I consider my retreat to have given me a tiny window into what it's like being homeless in the United States.

I'll pray that things improve and that the police leave you alone.

You're such a quiet, clean, and low impact person so I find this to be truly unfair.

The first night, you actually cleaned up the camp sight area.

We made it better than before we came.

[Jhanananda]

Yes, follinge, I always pick up the garbage where ever I camp.  Sadly, the homeless are in the lowest social position with little kindness showed to us.  Often police and rangers just target us, giving us tickets that we cannot afford to pay.  When the ticket is not paid, then there is a warrant out for our arrest.  Then we spend time in jail, and lose what little we could accumulate for our survival.  It goes on like that in every town, city, and forest.

[Jhanananda]

Here is a very interesting and related case.

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F. 3d 1118 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2006

For the approximately 11,000-12,000 homeless individuals in Skid Row, space is available in SRO hotels, shelters, and other temporary or transitional housing for only 9000 to 10,000, leaving more than 1000 people unable to find shelter each night. See Mayor's Citizens' Task Force, supra, at 5. In the County as a whole, there are almost 50,000 more homeless people than available beds. See L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., supra, at 2-14. In 1999, the fair market rent for an SRO room in Los Angeles was $379 per month. L.A. Housing Crisis Task Force, In Short Supply 6 (2000). Yet the monthly welfare stipend for single adults in Los Angeles County is only $221. See L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., supra, at 2-10. Wait-lists for public housing and for housing assistance vouchers in Los Angeles are three-to ten-years long. See The U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities 101, 105 (2002) [hereinafter Homelessness Report];[1] L.A. Housing Crisis Task Force, supra, at 7.

The result, in City officials' own words, is that "`[t]he gap between the homeless population needing a shelter bed and the inventory of shelter beds is severely large.'" Homelessness Report, supra, at 80. As Los Angeles's homeless population has grown, see id. at 109 (estimating annualized growth of ten percent in Los Angeles's homeless population in the years up to and including 2003), the availability of low-income housing in Skid Row has shrunk, according to the declaration of Alice Callaghan, director of a Skid Row community center and board member of the Skid Row Housing Trust. According to Callaghan's declaration, at night in Skid Row, SRO hotels, shelters, and other temporary or transitional housing are the only alternatives to sleeping on the street; during the day, two small parks are open to
1123
*1123 the public. Thus, for many in Skid Row without the resources or luck to obtain shelter, sidewalks are the only place to be....

IV. Conclusion

Homelessness is not an innate or immutable characteristic, nor is it a disease, such as drug addiction or alcoholism. But generally one cannot become a drug addict or alcoholic, as those terms are commonly used, without engaging in at least some voluntary acts (taking drugs, drinking alcohol). Similarly, an individual may become homeless based on factors both within and beyond his immediate control, especially in consideration of the composition of the homeless as a group: the mentally ill, addicts, victims of domestic violence, the unemployed, and the unemployable. That Appellants may obtain shelter on some nights and may eventually escape from homelessness does not render their status at the time of arrest any less worthy of protection than a drug addict's or an alcoholic's.

Undisputed evidence in the record establishes that at the time they were cited or arrested, Appellants had no choice other than to be on the streets. Even if Appellants' past volitional acts contributed to their current need to sit, lie, and sleep on public sidewalks at night, those acts are not sufficiently proximate to the conduct at issue here for the imposition of penal sanctions to be permissible. See Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 550 n. 2, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (White, J., concurring in the judgment). In contrast, we find no Eighth Amendment protection for conduct that a person makes unavoidable based on their own immediately proximate voluntary acts, for example, driving while drunk, harassing others, or camping or building shelters that interfere with pedestrian or automobile traffic.

Our holding is a limited one. We do not hold that the Eighth Amendment includes a mens rea requirement, or that it prevents the state from criminalizing conduct that is not an unavoidable consequence of being homeless, such as panhandling or obstructing public thoroughfares. Cf. United States v. Black, 116 F.3d 198, 201 (7th Cir.1997) (rejecting convicted pedophile's Eighth Amendment challenge to his prosecution for receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography because, inter alia, defendant "did not show that [the] charged conduct was involuntary or uncontrollable").

1138
*1138 We are not confronted here with a facial challenge to a statute, cf. Roulette v. City of Seattle, 97 F.3d 300, 302 (9th Cir.1996) (rejecting a facial challenge to a municipal ordinance that prohibited sitting or lying on public sidewalks); Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1080, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402, 892 P.2d 1145 (1995) (finding a municipal ordinance that banned camping in designated public areas to be facially valid); nor a statute that criminalizes public drunkenness or camping, cf. Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 846 (N.D.Cal.1994) (program at issue targeted public drunkenness and camping in public parks); or sitting, lying, or sleeping only at certain times or in certain places within the city. And we are not called upon to decide the constitutionality of punishment when there are beds available for the homeless in shelters. Cf. Joel v. City of Orlando, 232 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir.2000) (affirming summary judgment for the City where "[t]he shelter has never reached its maximum capacity and no individual has been turned away for lack of space or for inability to pay the one dollar fee").

We hold only that, just as the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of criminal punishment on an individual for being a drug addict, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962); or for involuntary public drunkenness that is an unavoidable consequence of being a chronic alcoholic without a home, Powell, 392 U.S. at 551, 88 S.Ct. 2145 (White, J., concurring in the judgment); id. at 568 n. 31, 88 S.Ct. 2145 (Fortas, J., dissenting); the Eighth Amendment prohibits the City from punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the City of Los Angeles.

We do not suggest that Los Angeles adopt any particular social policy, plan, or law to care for the homeless. See Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 350-51 (N.D.Tex.1994), rev'd on standing grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995). We do not desire to encroach on the legislative and executive functions reserved to the City Council and the Mayor of Los Angeles. There is obviously a "homeless problem" in the City of Los Angeles, which the City is free to address in any way that it sees fit, consistent with the constitutional principles we have articulated. See id. By our decision, we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets of Los Angeles at any time and at any place within the City. All we hold is that, so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles than the number of available beds, the City may not enforce section 41.18(d) at all times and places throughout the City against homeless individuals for involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public. Appellants are entitled at a minimum to a narrowly tailored injunction against the City's enforcement of section 41.18(d) at certain times and/or places.

We reverse the award of summary judgment to the City, grant summary judgment to Appellants, and remand to the district court for a determination of injunctive relief consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

[Jhanananda]

About time,

Attorney General Lynch demands a halt to criminalizing homelessness for profit.

On Monday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a stern order to state court officials to stop, forthwith, targeting poor and homeless people and throwing them in jail for being too poor to pay fines for the crime of being too poor to have a place to live.

This seems like a way to enforce not criminalizing the homeless.

Withholding HUD Funds a Possibility For Cities That Criminalize Homelessness

[Alexander]

I was seriously reflecting on becoming homeless, like you, Jeffrey, yesterday; and thinking about the preparations I would need to do so. Mostly due to the significant stresses of working life, along with my lack of time to dedicate to meditation. It is good to hear they are not criminalizing the homeless, as I always keep the presence of mind that could be me --- imminently. Unfortunately, I was reading they were doing the same in Hungary. It is easier to criminalize and sweep away the homeless, than attempt to reform the problems that exist within the system itself.

[Jhanananda]

Alexander, the mendicant life is the life of the mystic, but it is not without its stresses, as I am sure you have observed in my many posts.  Without a social security check coming in regularly it becomes very difficult.  One often ends up on a bicycle and living out of a tent.  For the young, this could be quite an adventure.  For the old, it is just too much of a struggle.

Justice Dept. Condemns Profit-Minded Court Policies Targeting the Poor, New York Times, By MATT APUZZOMARCH 14, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday called on state judges across the country to root out unconstitutional policies that have locked poor people in a cycle of fines, debt and jail. It was the Obama administration’s latest effort to take its civil rights agenda to the states, which have become a frontier in the fight over the rights of the poor and the disabled, the transgender and the homeless.

In a letter to chief judges and court administrators, Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department’s top civil rights prosecutor, and Lisa Foster, who leads a program on court access, warned against operating courthouses as for-profit ventures. It chastised judges and court staff members for using arrest warrants as a way to collect fees. Such policies, the letter said, made it more likely that poor people would be arrested, jailed and fined anew — all for being unable to pay in the first place...

The Obama administration has used letters, both in and out of court, to help push the boundaries of civil rights law. In dozens of lawsuits around the country, many of which involved local disputes, the Justice Department has filed so-called statements of interest, throwing its weight behind private lawsuits. It has filed such statements in matters involving legal aid for the poor, transgender students, juvenile prisoners and people who take videos of police officers.

[Jhanananda]

Justice Department Tackles Quality Of Defense For The Poor

All over the country, lawyers who defend poor people in criminal cases have been sharing their stories about painful budget cuts. Some federal public defenders have shut their doors to new clients after big layoffs. And in many states, the public defense system has operated in crisis for years.

But an unprecedented recent court filing from the Justice Department has cheered the typically overburdened attorneys who represent the poor and could have dramatic implications for the representation of indigent defendants.

"This is a breakthrough moment," Norman Reimer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers told an audience earlier this month at the Law Library of Congress. "If you want to talk about something that could give us cause for optimism, this to me is the most optimistic development we have seen in years."

At just 17 pages, the filing doesn't seem like a milestone. But lawyers at the Justice Department say the decision to weigh in on a case about the quality of indigent defense in two cities north of Seattle is nothing short of historic.

Rubber Stamp Justice. US Courts, Debt Buying Corporations, and the Poor

Every year, several hundred thousand people across the United States are sued by companies they have never done business with and may never have heard of. These firms are called debt buyers and although they have never loaned anyone a penny, millions of Americans owe them money. Debt buyers purchase vast portfolios of bad debts—mostly delinquent credit cards—from lenders who have written them off as a loss. They pay just pennies on the dollar but can go after alleged debtors for the full face value of every debt plus interest at rates that routinely exceed 25 percent.

Debt buyers also rely on tax-funded state institutions—namely the court system—to secure much of their income. Leading debt buyers rank among the heaviest individual users of state court systems across the US, and various legal actions and research, including that of Human Rights Watch, have identified repeated patterns of error and lack of legal compliance in their lawsuits. These problems are often discovered long after the debt buyers have already won court judgments against alleged debtors, a situation that arises because of the inability of alleged debtors to mount an effective defense even when they are on the right side of the law. Debt buyer lawsuits typically play out before the courts with a stark inequality of arms, pitting unrepresented defendants against seasoned collections attorneys.

Justice Department Files Brief to Address the Criminalization of Homelessness

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest today arguing that making it a crime for people who are homeless to sleep in public places, when there is insufficient shelter space in a city, unconstitutionally punishes them for being homeless.  The statement of interest was filed in federal district court in Idaho in Bell v. City of Boise et al., a case brought by homeless plaintiffs who were convicted under Boise ordinances that criminalize sleeping or camping in public.

The US Department of Justice, Office for Access to Justice Home

March 14, 2016
Press Release
Justice Department Announces Resources to Assist State and Local Reform of Fine and Fee Practices

Dear Colleague Letter from the Civil Rights Division and the Office for Access to Justice to provide greater clarity to state and local courts regarding their legal obligations with respect to the enforcement of court fines and fees.  The letter addresses some of the most common practices that run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and/or other federal laws, such as incarcerating individuals for nonpayment without determining their ability to pay.  The letter also discusses the importance of due process protections such as notice and, in appropriate cases, the right to counsel; the need to avoid unconstitutional bail practices; and due process concerns raised by certain private probation arrangements.

The Price of Justice: Rethinking the Consequences of Justice Fines and Fees

Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Poverty Is Not A Crime

December 2, 2015

Courtesy of Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates

There is no principle underlying our criminal justice system more essential than that we must treat equally the wealthy and the poor.  As former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said in 1962, “If justice is priced in the market place, individual liberty will be curtailed and respect for law diminished.”

To the vast majority of Americans, this concept is a given; it’s innate to being American.  This country banned debtors’ prisons under federal law back in 1833.  In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a maximum prison term could not be extended because a defendant failed to pay court costs or fines.  A year later, those same justices ruled that a defendant may not be jailed solely because he or she is too poor to pay a fine.  Again, in 1983, in a case called Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution does not permit “punishing a person for his poverty.”

Despite these longstanding ideals and principles, in some places around our country, fines are still being imposed and people are still being incarcerated for nonpayment without a judge ever making the basic required inquiry — “Can this person afford to pay?”  In these places, court fines, fees and other financial obligations can lead to unnecessary incarceration, trap people in a cycle of poverty, and undermine the faith in the justice system that is so critical to public safety.

Take for example the city of Ferguson, Missouri.  The Justice Department Civil Rights Division’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department found that Ferguson’s courts imposed excessive fines and routinely ordered the arrest of low-income residents when they failed to make payments they could not afford.  For example, a 67-year-old woman living on a fixed income was taken to jail for missed payments related to a trash-removal citation.  The court imposed fines totaling $1,000, which she struggled to pay in $100 monthly installments.

In a city of 21,000, Ferguson’s courts issued arrest warrants for over 9,000 people in 2013 alone, almost entirely on cases stemming from low-level offenses.  When people were arrested, they routinely sat in jail because bond was set with no regard to their financial situation.  The Civil Rights Division’s investigation found that these harms were borne disproportionately by the city’s African-American community.

Unfortunately, these troubling dynamics aren’t unique to Ferguson.  In Georgia – where I served as U.S. Attorney – the state had a system in which people were being fined for low-level misdemeanor offenses such as traffic violations or public nuisance citations.  Due to a law passed in 2000, private probation companies supervised these people and set monthly or weekly payment amounts that were much higher than necessary to collect funds owed during their probationary term.  In some cases, probationers were expected to pay all court fines and surcharges, as well as provider supervision fees, in less than half of the term.  Many of these private probation providers failed to consider whether probationers had the ability to meet their financial obligations.  And some of these private companies would unlawfully extend the probation term, improperly allocate probationer payments to themselves instead of the court, or obtain arrest warrants for failure to pay.  One can see how this system was not only unfair, but could easily trap low-income individuals into a cycle of poverty through the series of cascading events they set in motion.