Laserfiche WebLink
outdoor shelter? If so, then Judge Smith was right to <br />say that the decision "effectively allows homeless <br />individuals to sleep and live wherever they wish on <br />most public property." Pet.App. 18a-19a (M. Smith, J., <br />dissenting from denial of rehearing en bane). <br />B. Another category of laws that Jones viewed as <br />clearly permissible were ordinances against camping <br />(as opposed to merely sleeping) in public. 444 F.3d at <br />1123. And yet one of the Boise ordinances at issue in <br />the decision below was a camping ordinance. Pet.App. <br />64a-65a. The opinion made clear that this ordinance <br />fell within the scope of its rule, because the ordinance <br />could be "enforced against homeless individuals who <br />take even the most rudimentary precautions to protect <br />themselves from the elements." Pet.App. 65a. <br />One cannot help but wonder what else the Ninth <br />Circuit will regard as constitutionally protected <br />"rudimentary precautions ... from the elements." For <br />example, it is easy to imagine an argument that the <br />decision below creates an Eighth Amendment right to <br />light fires (necessary for cooking) or even erect <br />structures (necessary to ensure shade from the sun <br />and protection from the rain) on public property. <br />More generally, the panel's insistence that only <br />voluntary conduct can be criminalized leads naturally <br />to the conclusion that a wide range of other laws — <br />such as laws against public urination, defecation, and <br />drug use —may also be unconstitutional in many cases. <br />See Pet.App. 17a-20a (M. Smith, J., dissenting from <br />denial of rehearing en bane). As one pro -Jones <br />commentator acknowledged: <br />It is unclear ... why the line should be drawn <br />[at public sleeping ordinances]. Both sleeping <br />