Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Vancouver, WA Move to End Nighttime Camping Ban Should Encourage Freedom Sleepers
Shattering my mood of curmudgeonly despair, the city of Vancouver, Washington looks to be taking the lead in moving to decriminalize nighttime camping for homeless folks--even without a successful lawsuit. This could be the domino that topples the House of Bigotry in Santa Cruz. Stay tuned. And support the Freedom Sleepers while you're watching...
City politicians in Vancouver, WA has taken a dramatic step in decriminalizing not just sleeping, but camping itself at night, anticipating that they will lose a court fight. The DOJ recently filed a "statement of interest" holding that camping bans in cities with no adequate shelter (i.e. everywhere, and particularly in Santa Cruz) violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This is not a court precedent, but could lead to one, and Vancouver politicos--who likely have no more compassion for homeless folks than the chairwarmers in Santa Cruz--are nervous. I regard this as a major breakthrough and a good issue for the unhoused and housed supporters to bring to the 9-22 Santa Cruz City Council and community.
The public education campaign at City Council can be sandwiched nicely in-between a scheduled 3 PM press conference denouncing violence against homeless advocates and individuals and the 11th SleepOut slated for later that night. Last night, police falsely arrested Abbi Samuels for "insufficient ID" (the charge was "obstructing an officer') when they knew perfectly well who she was. First Alarm security guards, concealing their name tags and badge numbers brutalized Christina Barnes for battery after stalking her throughout the early evening.
Some have suggested taking sleeping bags into City Council chambers during the evening and simply rolling them out to sleep there, given the city refusal to fund emergency shelter or lift the sleeping ban, as Vancouver is now doing. Folks are invited to come on down to witness or participate in the day (and night)'s events.
Here are two stories about an unexpected breakthrough of sanity (or perhaps just fiscal common sense--realizing how vulerable cities are with camping bans). Will Santa Cruz get a clue? Best to keep up the pressure until City Manager Martin Bernal, Police Chief Vogel, and City Attorney Condotti sniff which way the wind is blowing.
Vancouver may allow overnight camping in public places
Potential change to ordinance prompted by federal opinion
By Joe Douglass, KATU News Sep 14, 2015
VANCOUVER, Wash. – The Vancouver City Council is considering allowing homeless people to sleep outside overnight legally.
The city has banned people from camping outside in public places since the late 1990s.
Police stopped enforcing the ban entirely about two weeks ago after the U.S. Justice Department put out a statement of interest on Aug. 6 saying the government can't ban people from sleeping outside.
The document says banning people from doing so is like saying being homeless is illegal, which the Justice Department says is unconstitutional.
“… it just keeps ‘em homeless.”
Tents and tarps line the streets around the Share House homeless shelter on West 13th Street in Vancouver.
Katherine Garrett, the shelter's program director, said the problem is worse than ever.
“I've never seen this much open camping before," said Garrett, who’s been working with the homeless in Vancouver since 2001.
She said the Share House is now serving a record 9,000 meals per month.
“It impacts more garbage,” said Garrett about the camping situation. “It impacts things that we can't provide for them. We don't have enough blankets, we don't have backpacks."
Technically, the people camping out in the area are now breaking the law.
Since 1997, the city has made camping in public places a misdemeanor.
“A lot of times it just keeps 'em homeless," said Garrett. “Getting tickets for camping, vagrancies, any of that always puts a black mark when it comes to getting employment or housing."
Police Chief James McElvain told KATU officers hadn't been cracking down on illegal camping all that much.
“On average, we were finding our officers citing about nine people in a month," said McElvain.
A proposed ordinance going before the city Monday night would allow people to camp out legally from 9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
McElvain said the ordinance would still allow police to crack down on other behaviors.
“You can't be drinking alcohol in public, you can't be urinating in public, you can't be fighting in public,” said McElvain, “and you can't block people’s pathway on a sidewalk.”
Kevin Lisman, who just became homeless in March, said he wishes people would have more sympathy.
“I had a job,” said Lisman. “I was working. I was making a good salary and then all of the sudden the roof fell in."
The City Council will vote on the proposal Monday night. (Update: Council has approved the first reading of proposed ordinance. It will move to a second reading and a public hearing next Monday.)
Tristia Bauman, senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty in Washington D.C., sent KATU a statement saying:
We are pleased that cities are paying attention to what the Justice Department has said, and that they are revising their criminalization policies. We are concerned, however, when cities attempt to do the bare minimum. Vancouver's law does not go far enough to address the constitutional problems identified by the federal government. Moreover, it is not the kind of constructive policy that the federal government is actively promoting, and that other cities are successful implementing. The much more cost-effective, constitutional, and humane approach is to provide permanent housing to homeless people.
“It is legal in Portland to sleep overnight in public spaces,” said Dana Haynes, spokesman for Portland Mayor Charlie Hales. “That includes parks and sidewalks. It isn’t legal to put up structures. That includes tents.”
Vancouver OKs overnight camping in public places
Unanimous vote by city council amends ordinance
Vancouver Police Cpl. Drue Russell, left, runs a man's identification that he found camping next to the Slocum House in Esther Short Park while VPD Cpl. Duane Boynton secures the man after he disclosed to officers that he was carrying a knife, as part of an ongoing effort by authorities to make the park a safer place on Friday March 4, 2011. (Zachary Kaufman/The Columbian)
By Amy Fischer, Columbian City Government Reporter
Published: September 14, 2015, 9:13 PM
Amending a Vancouver city ordinance to allow overnight camping in public places is just a “baby step” toward solving the city’s homeless troubles and lack of shelter space, citizens told the city council Monday.
“I don’t want to see the council put a bow on our problem and make it look all pretty by providing (camping) hours when we’re not addressing the real issues,” Hough neighborhood resident Heidi Owens said.
The council unanimously voted Monday to change Vancouver’s unlawful camping ordinance to allow camping in public places from 9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. Such overnight camping previously had been a misdemeanor. The change wouldn’t affect park hours (parks close from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.) or laws prohibiting disorderly conduct, drinking in public, urinating in public and other health and safety issues.
The city’s legal staff recommended the change in response to a federal Department of Justice opinion, issued Aug. 8, on a case pending in federal court in Boise, Idaho. The opinion states that outlawing camping in all places and all times, including when shelter space is unavailable, is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Basically, the opinion says, all people have a right to sleep.
Mayor Tim Leavitt said he realizes some residents aren’t happy about the change to the camping ordinance.
“We have to do this because we’re not going to win taking on the Supreme Court,” he said.
City Manager Eric Holmes emphasized that the ordinance revision is an interim measure while the city continues to look for solutions. Vancouver has a lack of toilets, showers and trash cans for the homeless — and an overwhelming need for beds.
Andy Silver, executive director of the Council for the Homeless, told the city council that 823 different people called the housing hotline this summer asking for emergency shelter. The agency was forced to say no to 722 of them — 88 percent — due to lack of shelter space, he said.
“Those folks have nowhere else to go,” Silver said. “I’m very optimistic that this is a step in the right direction, but I don’t want anyone to think this is the end of the road.”
Katherine Garrett, director of Share House, said that in the eyes of landlords, people who have three camping violations on their record might as well have a felony. Continuing to cite homeless people, fine them and jail them hinders their movement forward and keeps the cycle of homelessness going, she said.
“They don’t have a chance,” she said.
Councilor Bart Hansen said he didn’t want to see “an unnecessary amount of resources going into people who have a tent up.”
Police would not be doing “sweeps” of homeless camps, but they would respond to complaints from neighborhood residents and business people about problems such as fighting and drinking in public, Vancouver Police Chief James McElvain said. Even then, officers have discretion about handling situations.
“Our first go-to isn’t to enforce the law. Our first go-to is to gain compliance from people. I don’t see us immediately going out and citing somebody,” McElvain said. “We’re not going to ignore it. … But our priority starts with crimes against persons and then crimes against property.”
FOR THE STAFF REPORT AND PROPOSED TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE, GO TO
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/10_sr134-15_unlawful_camping_ordinance_amendment.pdf
The public education campaign at City Council can be sandwiched nicely in-between a scheduled 3 PM press conference denouncing violence against homeless advocates and individuals and the 11th SleepOut slated for later that night. Last night, police falsely arrested Abbi Samuels for "insufficient ID" (the charge was "obstructing an officer') when they knew perfectly well who she was. First Alarm security guards, concealing their name tags and badge numbers brutalized Christina Barnes for battery after stalking her throughout the early evening.
Some have suggested taking sleeping bags into City Council chambers during the evening and simply rolling them out to sleep there, given the city refusal to fund emergency shelter or lift the sleeping ban, as Vancouver is now doing. Folks are invited to come on down to witness or participate in the day (and night)'s events.
Here are two stories about an unexpected breakthrough of sanity (or perhaps just fiscal common sense--realizing how vulerable cities are with camping bans). Will Santa Cruz get a clue? Best to keep up the pressure until City Manager Martin Bernal, Police Chief Vogel, and City Attorney Condotti sniff which way the wind is blowing.
Vancouver may allow overnight camping in public places
Potential change to ordinance prompted by federal opinion
By Joe Douglass, KATU News Sep 14, 2015
VANCOUVER, Wash. – The Vancouver City Council is considering allowing homeless people to sleep outside overnight legally.
The city has banned people from camping outside in public places since the late 1990s.
Police stopped enforcing the ban entirely about two weeks ago after the U.S. Justice Department put out a statement of interest on Aug. 6 saying the government can't ban people from sleeping outside.
The document says banning people from doing so is like saying being homeless is illegal, which the Justice Department says is unconstitutional.
“… it just keeps ‘em homeless.”
Tents and tarps line the streets around the Share House homeless shelter on West 13th Street in Vancouver.
Katherine Garrett, the shelter's program director, said the problem is worse than ever.
“I've never seen this much open camping before," said Garrett, who’s been working with the homeless in Vancouver since 2001.
She said the Share House is now serving a record 9,000 meals per month.
“It impacts more garbage,” said Garrett about the camping situation. “It impacts things that we can't provide for them. We don't have enough blankets, we don't have backpacks."
Technically, the people camping out in the area are now breaking the law.
Since 1997, the city has made camping in public places a misdemeanor.
“A lot of times it just keeps 'em homeless," said Garrett. “Getting tickets for camping, vagrancies, any of that always puts a black mark when it comes to getting employment or housing."
Police Chief James McElvain told KATU officers hadn't been cracking down on illegal camping all that much.
“On average, we were finding our officers citing about nine people in a month," said McElvain.
A proposed ordinance going before the city Monday night would allow people to camp out legally from 9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
McElvain said the ordinance would still allow police to crack down on other behaviors.
“You can't be drinking alcohol in public, you can't be urinating in public, you can't be fighting in public,” said McElvain, “and you can't block people’s pathway on a sidewalk.”
Kevin Lisman, who just became homeless in March, said he wishes people would have more sympathy.
“I had a job,” said Lisman. “I was working. I was making a good salary and then all of the sudden the roof fell in."
The City Council will vote on the proposal Monday night. (Update: Council has approved the first reading of proposed ordinance. It will move to a second reading and a public hearing next Monday.)
Tristia Bauman, senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty in Washington D.C., sent KATU a statement saying:
We are pleased that cities are paying attention to what the Justice Department has said, and that they are revising their criminalization policies. We are concerned, however, when cities attempt to do the bare minimum. Vancouver's law does not go far enough to address the constitutional problems identified by the federal government. Moreover, it is not the kind of constructive policy that the federal government is actively promoting, and that other cities are successful implementing. The much more cost-effective, constitutional, and humane approach is to provide permanent housing to homeless people.
“It is legal in Portland to sleep overnight in public spaces,” said Dana Haynes, spokesman for Portland Mayor Charlie Hales. “That includes parks and sidewalks. It isn’t legal to put up structures. That includes tents.”
Vancouver OKs overnight camping in public places
Unanimous vote by city council amends ordinance
Vancouver Police Cpl. Drue Russell, left, runs a man's identification that he found camping next to the Slocum House in Esther Short Park while VPD Cpl. Duane Boynton secures the man after he disclosed to officers that he was carrying a knife, as part of an ongoing effort by authorities to make the park a safer place on Friday March 4, 2011. (Zachary Kaufman/The Columbian)
By Amy Fischer, Columbian City Government Reporter
Published: September 14, 2015, 9:13 PM
Amending a Vancouver city ordinance to allow overnight camping in public places is just a “baby step” toward solving the city’s homeless troubles and lack of shelter space, citizens told the city council Monday.
“I don’t want to see the council put a bow on our problem and make it look all pretty by providing (camping) hours when we’re not addressing the real issues,” Hough neighborhood resident Heidi Owens said.
The council unanimously voted Monday to change Vancouver’s unlawful camping ordinance to allow camping in public places from 9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. Such overnight camping previously had been a misdemeanor. The change wouldn’t affect park hours (parks close from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.) or laws prohibiting disorderly conduct, drinking in public, urinating in public and other health and safety issues.
The city’s legal staff recommended the change in response to a federal Department of Justice opinion, issued Aug. 8, on a case pending in federal court in Boise, Idaho. The opinion states that outlawing camping in all places and all times, including when shelter space is unavailable, is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Basically, the opinion says, all people have a right to sleep.
Mayor Tim Leavitt said he realizes some residents aren’t happy about the change to the camping ordinance.
“We have to do this because we’re not going to win taking on the Supreme Court,” he said.
City Manager Eric Holmes emphasized that the ordinance revision is an interim measure while the city continues to look for solutions. Vancouver has a lack of toilets, showers and trash cans for the homeless — and an overwhelming need for beds.
Andy Silver, executive director of the Council for the Homeless, told the city council that 823 different people called the housing hotline this summer asking for emergency shelter. The agency was forced to say no to 722 of them — 88 percent — due to lack of shelter space, he said.
“Those folks have nowhere else to go,” Silver said. “I’m very optimistic that this is a step in the right direction, but I don’t want anyone to think this is the end of the road.”
Katherine Garrett, director of Share House, said that in the eyes of landlords, people who have three camping violations on their record might as well have a felony. Continuing to cite homeless people, fine them and jail them hinders their movement forward and keeps the cycle of homelessness going, she said.
“They don’t have a chance,” she said.
Councilor Bart Hansen said he didn’t want to see “an unnecessary amount of resources going into people who have a tent up.”
Police would not be doing “sweeps” of homeless camps, but they would respond to complaints from neighborhood residents and business people about problems such as fighting and drinking in public, Vancouver Police Chief James McElvain said. Even then, officers have discretion about handling situations.
“Our first go-to isn’t to enforce the law. Our first go-to is to gain compliance from people. I don’t see us immediately going out and citing somebody,” McElvain said. “We’re not going to ignore it. … But our priority starts with crimes against persons and then crimes against property.”
FOR THE STAFF REPORT AND PROPOSED TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE, GO TO
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/10_sr134-15_unlawful_camping_ordinance_amendment.pdf
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"The city’s legal staff recommended the change in response to a federal Department of Justice opinion, issued Aug. 8, on a case pending in federal court in Boise, Idaho."
Right after the 9th Circuit oral arguments in Desertrain v. Los Angeles; Palo Alto put their anti-car habitation ordinances on hold, fearful of a then obvious 9th ruling. TBSC & cronies seem to favor the (expensive) opposite approach to Desertrain v. Los Angeles (and Bell v. Boise).
"“We have to do this because we’re not going to win taking on the Supreme Court,” he said."
TBSC & cronies don't seem to care about squandering tax payer income on hate.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/09/10/18777446.php?show_comments=1#18777459
With the ruling in Papachristou v. Jacksonville, the Supreme Court made their opinion eloquently clear, over 40 years ago. It will require those that play to win, like NLCHP, attacking on multiple fronts, including taking it all the way to the highest courts, to establish meaningful change. If TBSC & cronies continue to defy the courts, then they themselves will eventually be taken to court. Piercing the veil of immunity will eventually be required.
If any form of government makes taking a nap a crime that government must be altered or abolished.
Right after the 9th Circuit oral arguments in Desertrain v. Los Angeles; Palo Alto put their anti-car habitation ordinances on hold, fearful of a then obvious 9th ruling. TBSC & cronies seem to favor the (expensive) opposite approach to Desertrain v. Los Angeles (and Bell v. Boise).
"“We have to do this because we’re not going to win taking on the Supreme Court,” he said."
TBSC & cronies don't seem to care about squandering tax payer income on hate.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/09/10/18777446.php?show_comments=1#18777459
With the ruling in Papachristou v. Jacksonville, the Supreme Court made their opinion eloquently clear, over 40 years ago. It will require those that play to win, like NLCHP, attacking on multiple fronts, including taking it all the way to the highest courts, to establish meaningful change. If TBSC & cronies continue to defy the courts, then they themselves will eventually be taken to court. Piercing the veil of immunity will eventually be required.
If any form of government makes taking a nap a crime that government must be altered or abolished.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
In Vancouver, "Since 1997, the city has made camping in public places a misdemeanor..." which IS NOT THE CASE in Santa Cruz. "Decriminalized" means no CRIMINAL penalty. You can receive a citation though. Just ask anyone without a state-mandated medical marijuana ID card who gets one for their long-'decriminalized' sacrament. Santa Cruz "Decriminalized" sleeping and camping a LONG time ago despite Robert's continued ministrations, and although I cheer for the homeless in Vancouver, this IS NOT a solution, at all.
I DO want to point out that decriminalization just PREVENTS EFFECTIVE COURT ACTION. No 'jury of your peers', no lawyer, no nothing except the chance to spend a fortune in your own money if you have it petitioning a state court for justice.
This is where Santa Cruz' homeless stand now. No lawsuits in re Bell v Boise, no funds to take their tickets to a higher court, and unpaid infraction related debt ruining their credit records, leaving them unable to get 'industry-standard' housing even IF they could afford it in the future.
I DO want to point out that decriminalization just PREVENTS EFFECTIVE COURT ACTION. No 'jury of your peers', no lawyer, no nothing except the chance to spend a fortune in your own money if you have it petitioning a state court for justice.
This is where Santa Cruz' homeless stand now. No lawsuits in re Bell v Boise, no funds to take their tickets to a higher court, and unpaid infraction related debt ruining their credit records, leaving them unable to get 'industry-standard' housing even IF they could afford it in the future.
647(e) is the Santa Cruz City/County misdemeanor offense of choice, 6 months to 2 years, even for someone taking a nap, sans accoutrement.
Just as a pending ruling in Desertrain v. Los Angeles caused Palo Alto to pause (as prescient, accurate analysis predicted, right here on Indybay/SantaCruz, to the shock and surprise of insistently ignorant anger trolls), a pending decision in Bell v. Boise is causing Vancouver to pause. If Bell v. Boise is decided via the 9th Circuit, any California cases could cite it, which would give local lower court judges much less room for abusive wiggle, with greater consequences, upon failure. Any existing/future City/County ordinances/enforcements ignoring such precedents do so at their own peril (well, actually, at tax payer peril, the City/County perps get paid either way).
That is why it was so disappointing when the San Diego case settled out of court, during appeal. They probably would have won. Then everyone else would be able to cite that ruling, instead of imposing decades more suffering on others. At least suffering for those without LEO 'acquaintances'.
#LegalizeDreaming
Just as a pending ruling in Desertrain v. Los Angeles caused Palo Alto to pause (as prescient, accurate analysis predicted, right here on Indybay/SantaCruz, to the shock and surprise of insistently ignorant anger trolls), a pending decision in Bell v. Boise is causing Vancouver to pause. If Bell v. Boise is decided via the 9th Circuit, any California cases could cite it, which would give local lower court judges much less room for abusive wiggle, with greater consequences, upon failure. Any existing/future City/County ordinances/enforcements ignoring such precedents do so at their own peril (well, actually, at tax payer peril, the City/County perps get paid either way).
That is why it was so disappointing when the San Diego case settled out of court, during appeal. They probably would have won. Then everyone else would be able to cite that ruling, instead of imposing decades more suffering on others. At least suffering for those without LEO 'acquaintances'.
#LegalizeDreaming
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
647(e) doesn't apply to private property if the property owner doesn't cooperate. There's nothing in it about being 'visible to the public' or any other method of circumventing the property owner's wishes UNDER THAT SPECIFIC CODE, and I DO believe, as seen at ANY 7-11 in California, the property owner must DISPLAY a warning about being prosecuted under the statute, and it can be quite specific. The ones at California 7/11s directly state OPEN CONTAINERS of alcoholic beverages violates your right to be there, but not hanging out having a cigarette before moving along.
Law, like code, relies upon accurate specificity.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Gary, they MEAN 647(e) but printed it 647 E. Perhaps because it's less expensive, or there wasn't room on the line or... and it's LEGAL to post it that way, and on the missydemeanor ticket it WILL be written 647(e) as there ***IS NO 647E***, and that citation, and what follows thereafter in the courts is the ONLY place 'How it's written' matters'
Here's an easy thing to do. Go read the text of 647e (it reads a lot like the sign, because it's an open container law), then read the text of 647(e) (it reads nothing like that sign, because it's the lodging law used to prosecute people taking naps). Clearly 7-11 has an interest in posting 647e signs, as it prohibits people (and, given Citizens United v. FEC and a clerks notes from Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, corporations) from hanging around the premises with open 7-11 products.
You can make up anything you like and post it, even pretend it is a fact, but please don't get upset (yet again) when your factual errors are corrected (yet again).
You can make up anything you like and post it, even pretend it is a fact, but please don't get upset (yet again) when your factual errors are corrected (yet again).
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
G actually wrote: "Go read the text of 647e (it reads a lot like the sign, because it's an open container law)"
Produce your facts or simply shut the fuck up troll.
I read the text of the law the very first day I heard of it Gary, and know the code's previous usage (Kolender v Lawson Stop and ID ruling) as well. You do not know what you're talking about. The current H&S 647(e) gives a property owner, which includes the state, county, or municipality the right to declare you persona non-gratis for any constitutionally legal reason. Further, "open container" laws are LOCAL laws, not state H&S codes. A search on "California open container H&S code" turns up MOTOR VEHICLE CODE. Also, there IS NO 647 E or 647E for you to argue a different law than 647(e) was intended, nor, as I mentioned before, does it matter. Or maybe it does. So sue 7/11, but it has no effect whatsoever on your receipt of a missydemeanor citation or further persecution under the correct code.
Here's Sacramento's Open Container law: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=9-9_04-9_04_055
Ps. "You can make up anything you like and post it, even pretend it is a fact, but please don't get upset (yet again) when your factual errors are corrected (yet again), Gary.
Produce your facts or simply shut the fuck up troll.
I read the text of the law the very first day I heard of it Gary, and know the code's previous usage (Kolender v Lawson Stop and ID ruling) as well. You do not know what you're talking about. The current H&S 647(e) gives a property owner, which includes the state, county, or municipality the right to declare you persona non-gratis for any constitutionally legal reason. Further, "open container" laws are LOCAL laws, not state H&S codes. A search on "California open container H&S code" turns up MOTOR VEHICLE CODE. Also, there IS NO 647 E or 647E for you to argue a different law than 647(e) was intended, nor, as I mentioned before, does it matter. Or maybe it does. So sue 7/11, but it has no effect whatsoever on your receipt of a missydemeanor citation or further persecution under the correct code.
Here's Sacramento's Open Container law: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=9-9_04-9_04_055
Ps. "You can make up anything you like and post it, even pretend it is a fact, but please don't get upset (yet again) when your factual errors are corrected (yet again), Gary.
It's easy enough for even the most basically skilled net users. Search for 647e. Click on a California Penal Code 647e hit. There you will find the law that your non-sequitur sign paraphrases. It looks like they drew from 647e(a).
"(a) A city, county, or city and county may by local ordinance provide that no person who has in his or her possession any bottle, can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, shall enter, be, or remain on the posted premises of, including the posted parking lot immediately adjacent to, any retail package off-sale alcoholic beverage licensee licensed pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code, or on any public sidewalk immediately adjacent to the licensed and posted premises. Any person violating any provision of such an ordinance shall be guilty of an infraction."
California Penal Code. An infraction. For open 7-11 containers outside 7-11.
Do a similar search for 647(e). There you will find...
"Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor [...] (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it."
California Penal Code. A misdemeanor. For napping (as shown in multiple trials).
Now, given Razer's documented history of unapologetic libel (typically in response to being corrected, yet again), and inability to acknowledge when Razer has been fact checked and corrected, yet again, I do not expect any retraction nor apology, although they are most welcome. I also don't expect anger trolls, after such embarrassing corrections have been made, to shut the fuck up. But let the record show that, indeed, I do know what the fuck I am talking about and Razer, well, seems to be a bit challenged, factually, yet again. So much for proponents of 'critique' and 'analysis'.
"(a) A city, county, or city and county may by local ordinance provide that no person who has in his or her possession any bottle, can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, shall enter, be, or remain on the posted premises of, including the posted parking lot immediately adjacent to, any retail package off-sale alcoholic beverage licensee licensed pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code, or on any public sidewalk immediately adjacent to the licensed and posted premises. Any person violating any provision of such an ordinance shall be guilty of an infraction."
California Penal Code. An infraction. For open 7-11 containers outside 7-11.
Do a similar search for 647(e). There you will find...
"Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor [...] (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it."
California Penal Code. A misdemeanor. For napping (as shown in multiple trials).
Now, given Razer's documented history of unapologetic libel (typically in response to being corrected, yet again), and inability to acknowledge when Razer has been fact checked and corrected, yet again, I do not expect any retraction nor apology, although they are most welcome. I also don't expect anger trolls, after such embarrassing corrections have been made, to shut the fuck up. But let the record show that, indeed, I do know what the fuck I am talking about and Razer, well, seems to be a bit challenged, factually, yet again. So much for proponents of 'critique' and 'analysis'.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Mea culpa for not investigating the subparts, nevertheless 647(e) is NOT an open container law. It's an 'umbrella' law including that particular prohibition. The odds of being cited for subpart (i) as opposed to the local muni code is about zilch. Never met anyone (and I know a LOT of drunks) charged with it. Lots of 647(f)s (drunk in public) though.
Here's the Santa Cruz "Open Container" law as part of chapter 8.02 which also contains subparts about consumption short of public drunkenness:
8.02.030 Possession of open alcoholic beverage containers.
It is unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession any can, bottle or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, on any property subject to SCCC 8.02.020 or 8.02.025 if the consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in such areas by SCCC 8.02.020 or 8.02.025. [Ord. 4594 § 2, 2000; Ord. 4488 § 1, 1998].
http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santacruzcounty/html/santacruzcounty08/SantaCruzCounty0802.html
Here's the Santa Cruz "Open Container" law as part of chapter 8.02 which also contains subparts about consumption short of public drunkenness:
8.02.030 Possession of open alcoholic beverage containers.
It is unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession any can, bottle or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, on any property subject to SCCC 8.02.020 or 8.02.025 if the consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in such areas by SCCC 8.02.020 or 8.02.025. [Ord. 4594 § 2, 2000; Ord. 4488 § 1, 1998].
http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santacruzcounty/html/santacruzcounty08/SantaCruzCounty0802.html
647e is what supports local open container ordinances (via "may by local ordinance provide"), as infractions. And 647e is not 647(f), which is a intoxicated in public misdemeanor law, listed just after 647(e) (I'd have to check the output of the ticket parsing code to see what Santa Cruz commonly uses for intoxication infractions). And is all pretty much off topic.
647(e) is what is used at trial in California, for sleep crimes, even when the tickets are given to protesters for violations of SCMC 6.36.* ordinances, 602(o) trespass misdemeanors, etc. That's why SB-608 was/is/will be important, because it seeks to modify 647(e). 647(e) is a criminal misdemeanor. That's why it's heard in criminal courts by criminal judges with criminal sentences. Which is an explicit example of how your initial rant was factually incorrect.
Back to the on topic stuff: much like Desertrain v. Los Angeles (which you also were quite wrong about, as events unfolded), Bell v. Boise has already begun to make well staffed municipalities cautious about their planned persecution of people taking a nap. The DoJ (and HUD) have made it known that they will act in defense of the Constitution (and Federal budgets). Sadly, Santa Cruz appears to be interested in remaining insistently ignorant. The President has already stated that federalizing police departments all over the country isn't a realistic option. So curtailing the misbehavior of TBSC et al. implies winning expensive civil judgments, supported by legislation (such as SB-608) or higher court rulings (such as Bell v. Boise). Of course that assumes functional legislative and judicial branches, which is becoming an increasingly foolish assumption.
Thus endeth the lesson.
647(e) is what is used at trial in California, for sleep crimes, even when the tickets are given to protesters for violations of SCMC 6.36.* ordinances, 602(o) trespass misdemeanors, etc. That's why SB-608 was/is/will be important, because it seeks to modify 647(e). 647(e) is a criminal misdemeanor. That's why it's heard in criminal courts by criminal judges with criminal sentences. Which is an explicit example of how your initial rant was factually incorrect.
Back to the on topic stuff: much like Desertrain v. Los Angeles (which you also were quite wrong about, as events unfolded), Bell v. Boise has already begun to make well staffed municipalities cautious about their planned persecution of people taking a nap. The DoJ (and HUD) have made it known that they will act in defense of the Constitution (and Federal budgets). Sadly, Santa Cruz appears to be interested in remaining insistently ignorant. The President has already stated that federalizing police departments all over the country isn't a realistic option. So curtailing the misbehavior of TBSC et al. implies winning expensive civil judgments, supported by legislation (such as SB-608) or higher court rulings (such as Bell v. Boise). Of course that assumes functional legislative and judicial branches, which is becoming an increasingly foolish assumption.
Thus endeth the lesson.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Really. It matter here.Troll.
according to the last page of the Misdemeanor and Infraction Bail Schedule of the Santa Cruz Superior Court:
http://www.santacruzcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/Misdemeanor%20Bail%20Schedule.pdf
G needs to do six months for LOITERING.
http://www.santacruzcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/Misdemeanor%20Bail%20Schedule.pdf
G needs to do six months for LOITERING.
Shepardizing the many hate laws and ordinances, and when they are struck down, can be so tedious.
Establishing protected class status might stem the flood of unconstitutional hate, yet situations like Ferguson reveal how fundamentally farcical rule of law is, as implemented in the USA.
Establishing protected class status might stem the flood of unconstitutional hate, yet situations like Ferguson reveal how fundamentally farcical rule of law is, as implemented in the USA.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
It's the state's way of saying on behalf of the people: You're taking up space where nobody wants you, so get on down the road, troll.
The state derives its legitimacy and moral right from the consent of the governed. At least among non-totalitarians, which USAians are supposed to be in theory but rarely are in practice. Maybe it's the being raised in hate?
Sleep is a physiological need. Sleep deprivation is a known torture technique, and has well documented detrimental health impacts. Because everyone needs to sleep, yet some lack options and must occasionally do so outside castle walls, the criminalization of sleep is often abused as a selective enforcement tool by petty tyrants wishing to impose their aesthetics and preferred conduct on others.
Loitering is a label used by those same petty tyrants to lay personal claim to all public space.
Both of those obsessively compulsive rule of law abuses are supposed to be illegal but sadly such disregard for the Constitution, the courts, even human decency, has become fashionable, yet again. Historically, such tyranny is dethroned, one way or another. The Declaration Of Independence is a foundational example. The sermon on the mount is another. Some say the 'none are above the law' Christian nation thing has always been a myth masking a genocidal empire. The decay of such empires is typically ugly and brutish. Why anyone would want to revisit that cliche, yet again, is a mystery to me.
Sleep is a physiological need. Sleep deprivation is a known torture technique, and has well documented detrimental health impacts. Because everyone needs to sleep, yet some lack options and must occasionally do so outside castle walls, the criminalization of sleep is often abused as a selective enforcement tool by petty tyrants wishing to impose their aesthetics and preferred conduct on others.
Loitering is a label used by those same petty tyrants to lay personal claim to all public space.
Both of those obsessively compulsive rule of law abuses are supposed to be illegal but sadly such disregard for the Constitution, the courts, even human decency, has become fashionable, yet again. Historically, such tyranny is dethroned, one way or another. The Declaration Of Independence is a foundational example. The sermon on the mount is another. Some say the 'none are above the law' Christian nation thing has always been a myth masking a genocidal empire. The decay of such empires is typically ugly and brutish. Why anyone would want to revisit that cliche, yet again, is a mystery to me.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Santa Cruz Leaders are too Stupid to See the End is Here.
Right now another anti-homeless law is moving through the city staff about banning people living in the last resort, available low income housing of Santa Cruz, RVs. It is being readied for a second reading and adoption into law. Santa Cruz leaders are too stupid or pure bigots to see the handwriting on the wall. The Federal government is going punish and sue all cities that continue to enforce laws that criminalize the poor and homeless. I hope Washington DC comes to Santa Cruz and makes our city the first example that they mean business.
Santa Cruz thinks it going to waste more tax payer money fighting a losing battle. It is up to the citizens to stand up, call out and cut the city’s purse strings from wasting anymore money in a no win situation. While homeless people and RV dwellers are under constant police attacks, drug dealers and surf gang bangers roam our city free and easy destroying our community with their violence and hooking our children on drugs that destroy their lives. However our city leaders cry out that people sleeping in public, cars and RVs are biggest crime problem in Santa Cruz!
Time for the community to wake up, demand that leaders and police use our precious money resources to really make our community safe!
Right now another anti-homeless law is moving through the city staff about banning people living in the last resort, available low income housing of Santa Cruz, RVs. It is being readied for a second reading and adoption into law. Santa Cruz leaders are too stupid or pure bigots to see the handwriting on the wall. The Federal government is going punish and sue all cities that continue to enforce laws that criminalize the poor and homeless. I hope Washington DC comes to Santa Cruz and makes our city the first example that they mean business.
Santa Cruz thinks it going to waste more tax payer money fighting a losing battle. It is up to the citizens to stand up, call out and cut the city’s purse strings from wasting anymore money in a no win situation. While homeless people and RV dwellers are under constant police attacks, drug dealers and surf gang bangers roam our city free and easy destroying our community with their violence and hooking our children on drugs that destroy their lives. However our city leaders cry out that people sleeping in public, cars and RVs are biggest crime problem in Santa Cruz!
Time for the community to wake up, demand that leaders and police use our precious money resources to really make our community safe!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network