Is California's Lodging Law (647e) Constitutional?

I believe the Superior Court clerk yesterday told me the case was in Dept. One, so check both departments (which are side by side immediately after you exit the intrusive metal detectors).

"Public property" does not belong to the general public, but belongs to the governmental agency who acquired the land. The only difference between private and public land ownership is the flavor of the money used to buy it. A public landowner can control access to the land, and who may access it--reasonable place, time and manner rules. And the courts have consistently ruled in government's favor (except where it involves sidewalks).

The wording in the law claims "Any Place". THAT IS what makes it unconstitutional as it seems, under any reasonable interpretation, to criminalize being in or entering the state if there's no place for the person to sleep... a necessary function. The US Constitution generally forbids any impediment to interstate travel by US citizens. With money or without... with housing or not.

That's why they're UNITED states... not countries or 'Fiefdoms'.

Meh. The law sounds pretty fucking constitutional, but good luck to ya anyway.

Just not liking authority figures doesn't make you special, kids. It just makes you juvenile, and brings into sharp relief your childhood hangups.

"Intrusive metal detectors"? Really, Robert? Are you suggesting that a courthouse is an inappropriate place to conduct security checks of the public? Are you smoking a new species of crack?

The People have an unenumerated right to sleep.
Government was granted no power to deny or disparage pre-existing individual rights. Didn't I make this clear in the 9th Amendment?

Eight or more people showed up with me and attorney Mark Garver to see if California's Lodging law 647(e), used to ticket, arrest and banish protesting homeless people during Peace Camp 2010, would be found constitutional or not by the court. It was simply continued.

I feel the law is overly general, especially when used to push around groups of displaced and homeless people. I mean, it doesn't really make much sense (to me) when used in landlord-tenant situations, as there are so many other concrete options if one feels she or he needs to engage the power of the state. Yet it has a long river of history in the latter application. But this isn't about how I feel. It is about how California, Santa Cruz County, the City of Santa Cruz, and perhaps the Nation are managing to blame the displaced "victims" for their dwindling resources in the face of growing needs. It is about the way the legal system can be used to contribute to the creation and widening of an upper and lower class of social services, and use the limited social services in ways that go far beyond the potential client's basic needs and rights.

Hopefully someday soon, it will also be about what was the Sheriff thinking when issuing lodging law citations? I'm not always so certain about "which side are you on?" but this round is clear. I'm out gathering up stones for David's slingshot. December 17th, a Hearing about the Constitutionality of the Lodging Law has been re-scheduled to be heard by Judge Rebecca Connally (sp uncertain?) in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, 701 Ocean St in the morning.

Several other Peace Camp 2010 sleepers are doing time now over stacks of Law Library's books; support and encouragement welcome for those sleeping outside still and for our team of attorneys. Or post citations you may find (9th Amendment?) here so everybody else can learn about these legal nooses.