CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n Ultimately, what all of these problems illustrate is that the panel's approach to this matter is profoundly mistaken. A particular homeless individual's inability to comply with the law should be addressed in that individual's criminal proceeding, perhaps through the assertion of a necessity defense. Attempting to solve the problem wholesale via broad pre -enforcement injunctions inevitably begets precisely the confusion that the decision below has already caused. For these reasons, this Court should intervene. ARGUMENT I. WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR SHELTER TO BE AVAILABLE? A. It Is Unclear Where Shelter Must Be Available One significant question created by the Ninth Circuit decision is where the requisite shelter must be available —in other words, what is the jurisdictional level at which its rule must be applied. Given that the rationale for the rule is that it is improper to punish involuntary behavior, Pet.App. 61a- 62a, the relevant question would seem to be whether shelter is available in any jurisdiction that the homeless individual could reasonably access. But the decision below arguably goes broader. Instead, public sleeping and camping ordinances cannot be enforced as long as "there is a greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available [shelter] beds." Pet.App. 62a (emphasis added and internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see Pet.App. 43a-51a (considering only whether shelters were available in Boise). This is certainly the interpretation adopted by homeless advocates.