Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09053-RGK-PJW (2014)
Rule of Law:
A criminal statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it is so vague that it fails to provide ordinary people with adequate notice of the conduct it prohibits and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Facts:
- In 1983, the City of Los Angeles enacted Municipal Code Section 85.02, which prohibits using a vehicle parked on a city street or lot 'as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise.'
- In 2010, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) created the Venice Homelessness Task Force to enforce Section 85.02, instructing officers to look for vehicles containing items like food, bedding, and clothing as indicators of a violation, and noting that sleeping in the vehicle was not a necessary element.
- Steve Jacobs-Elstein, a homeless man, was cited and later arrested for violating the ordinance while parked and waiting for a church to open, even though he slept on private property at night.
- Chris Taylor, who slept at a designated Winter Shelter, was arrested for violating the ordinance while sitting in his car to get out of the rain; his car contained a tin of food, clothing, and a bottle of urine.
- Patricia Warivonchik was pulled over by police while driving her RV through Venice and was issued a written warning for violating Section 85.02, although she was not parked.
- William Cagle, a homeless man with congestive heart failure, was cited and arrested twice for violating the ordinance while in his small van, which contained his clothing, bedding, food, and medicine.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, four homeless individuals, filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and individual LAPD officers in the U.S. District Court.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- In their summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs argued for the first time that Section 85.02 was unconstitutionally vague.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Defendants (the City) and denied Plaintiffs' motion, refusing to consider the vagueness claim because it was not raised in the initial complaint.
- Plaintiffs (as Appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 85.02, which prohibits using a vehicle as 'living quarters,' violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson, Circuit Judge
Yes, Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 85.02 violates the Due Process Clause because it is unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance fails both prongs of the void-for-vagueness test. First, it fails to provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited because the term 'living quarters' is undefined, forcing people of common intelligence to guess its meaning and criminalizing innocent behavior like eating in a car or keeping personal belongings inside. Second, the ordinance encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because its vagueness allows police to selectively target the homeless for conduct that is common among many other citizens, turning the ordinance into a tool for penalizing the status of being poor and homeless rather than proscribing specific unlawful acts. Although the city cited health and safety concerns, these do not justify a law so broad that it fails to draw a clear line between innocent and criminal conduct and is not applied even-handedly.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the void-for-vagueness doctrine as a constitutional shield against the criminalization of homelessness. It establishes a strong precedent within the Ninth Circuit against vaguely worded municipal ordinances that grant law enforcement excessive discretion to target vulnerable populations. The ruling obligates municipalities to draft anti-vagrancy and public-nuisance laws with precision, ensuring they prohibit specific, clearly defined conduct rather than a person's status or condition. Future legal challenges to similar ordinances will likely rely on this case's two-pronged analysis focusing on lack of notice and the potential for discriminatory enforcement.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (2014)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"