Notes from 2/14 Criminalization of Homelessness discussion

here are my notes from the criminalization of homelessness event last thursday. it was an engaging, thought provoking discussion that raised a number of issues potentially relevant to our project. so there is actually some good stuff in my notes, but if you find them to be lacking in coherence feel free to ask me a question and i'll try to clarify. also, i'm going to follow up on a number of the issues in additional posts that will be coming shortly.

A. Criminalization of homelessness in San Francisco:
1. citations targeted at the homeless
--- issued for things like sitting on the sidewalk or in a park, sleeping on the sidewalk or in a park; trespassing on public property; having an open container also big;
---the number of these citations has more than quadrupled in san fran
---the DA in the city has decided to prosecute all “homelessness” crimes; prior to this when these cases were heard in traffic court no attorneys were present for the state; the DA is now prosecuting the homelessness crimes, but continues to not prosecute other general traffic violations; the DA is not exercising discretion at all---not looking at probably cause etc--- but rather pushing for trial or guilty plea and not dismissing period
---media coverage: the Chronicle has been especially vocal about getting homeless off street and into criminal justice system
---people getting anxious with mayor—in four years he hasn’t delivered on promise to address homelessness
---major consequences for homeless people because they generally cant find representation: a few organizations are able to defend a small number of people, but most are on their own so they get convicted and have a warrant issued against them;
---POLICY POINT: this type of enforcement is a backdoor way to give people criminal records without representation; they don’t get a public defender for the citation and it affects their ability to get jobs, etc… down the road; thus it basically traps people in place instead of working to facilitate a solution;

2. property confiscation:
--- police threaten homeless to either leave or have their belongings taken and thrown away
---the city is supposed to have a policy of storing things so people can get them back but this hasn’t happened;

B. Criminalization of homelessness in Berkeley
---much of san fran discussion also applies to Berkeley;
---reputation of city is progressive, but nonetheless has very onerous policy regarding homelessness;
GOOD POINT: people in Berkeley are more radical/progressive the further detached from day to day reality the issues is; ie radical about war and torture, conservative about homelessness
---the Chronicle articles regarding homelessness are “practically yellow journalism against homeless people”
---GOOD POINT: separate homelessness from criminal activity/public indecency; there are already laws against actual crimes and unruly behavior like public urination but laws at issue target people who are just sitting on the sidewalk or in a park because they have no where else to go;
---berkeley city council passed resolution saying police of Berkeley should enforce all laws applicable against homeless: obstructing sidewalk, etc…
--- police as such are “garbage collectors” of Berkeley: role is to push people out of town, send them elsewhere;
---examples of osha’s clients:
---disabled woman in wheel chair, was in park sitting; cited for loitering under statute in Berkeley saying unlawful for people to loiter near park or school yard within certain distance of school children
---guy sitting on public sidewalk, cited for trespassing
---50 year old man asleep in doorway on Shattuck, cited for obstructing business entrance at 6am on Sunday morning
---62 year old woman in wheel chair and legally blind, a diabetic with arthritis cancer and schizophrenia, cited for trespassing for seeking shelter in empty door front on Shattuck;
---two women sitting on sidewalk leaning up against empty store front; cited for trespassing on public sidewalk; numerous complaints about trash, urination; but women were just sitting there;

C. Broader Policy considerations and other general thoughts from the discussion

---visibility of homelessness is especially disturbing to people; people don’t want to have to face realities of the system: problem is difficult to solve because society wants homeless to simply to go away but don’t want to care for them, provide necessary services

--- should the homeless be considered a “suspect class” under due process clause?
---they are an insular, segregated minority;
---ability to self-organize is very low; suffer from addiction, mental illness;

---in order to solve poverty the poor need to organize and develop a political voice---MLK envisioned a poor peoples march on Washington;
---[MY NOTE: see Kensington group in philly for example of homeless organization]

---EVENT: in march at Berkeley there will be a large conference on criminalization of poverty

---lack of housing/shelters is key issue: where do people go if not on street? If they cant go on the street, what options for people other than punishing them with the criminal justice system?

--- red hook community justice center:
---alternative to criminalization
---court is like a community center that connects people that come into system with resources needed to help them; judges investigate nature of problem; committed to needs of individual clients given the specific facts of a case; model also focuses more on more serious crimes than just homelessness

---there is more of a “street scene” in berkeley and san fran than in other places; more possible for homeless to find community

---The Jones decision—Los Angeles Case:
--- stated that it is cruel and unusual punishment to criminalize being homeless and on the street if people have no where else to go---thus major issue is lack of shelters;
---decision vacated pursuant to a settlement made by southern cali ACLU which brought suit;
---homeless advocates were upset with souther cali ACLU for agreeing to that settlement;
---although it cannot be cited as precedent it has persuasive effect that 8th amendment can apply to these homelessness cases
---can’t punish conduct or form of being that is involuntary; ie can’t punish someone for something that they cant help but be;

---Other important cases: pottinger; robinson v. cali; powell v. texas (plurality of sup. Ct says you cannot punish a chronic alcoholic for drinking in public; 4 dissenters plus one concurring [relied on in jones decision])

---Osha’s arg: cant enforce these homeless laws constitutionally unless people have other alternatives;

---one Alameda county innovation is the homeless caring court;
---a one shot opportunity for people working in a program to get out of homelessness to have old citations dismissed if they can persuade judge that they are on the path to self improvement;
---great, but does contribute to categorical distinction between worthy and unworthy poor

---No place to go to detox in Berkeley;

---the most effective organization for getting popele off streets in Berkeley is
homeless action center—gets people on SSI for example