Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />Second Amendment violation, for that matter)? Could <br />a shelter policy against using profane language violate <br />a resident's free speech rights? All of this remains to <br />be determined, if the decision below holds. <br />Other questions readily present themselves, too. <br />For example, some shelters are open exclusively to <br />men or to women. See, e.g., Pet.App. 38a-39a. Is such <br />a shelter "available" to a married individual whose <br />spouse would be excluded? Does that implicate his <br />constitutional due process rights? Similarly, some <br />have asserted that homeless individuals who own pets <br />should not be required to use a shelter which does not <br />allow pets. Indeed, it has been suggested that some <br />homeless individuals are acquiring pets in the hopes <br />that this will exempt them from the enforcement of <br />anti -camping ordinances. <br />In addition, some shelters may not admit persons <br />with prior convictions for various serious offenses <br />(such as violent crimes or sex crimes). Under the <br />Ninth Circuit rule, does every jurisdiction have to <br />maintain a separate shelter for such individuals? <br />In short, the question of what constitutes <br />"adequate" shelter remains profoundly unsettled. <br />C.It Is Unclear When Shelter Must Be <br />Available <br />There are also serious lurking questions as to when <br />a homeless individual must have access to shelter. <br />The answer may appear to be obvious: shelter must be <br />available as of the moment when the government <br />attempts to enforce its ordinance. But that approach <br />quickly devolves into paradox. <br />Consider a shelter which (as any shelter must) <br />imposes some basic rules on its residents, such as a <br />