Pottinger v. City of Miami
1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17640, 1992 WL 414704, 810 F.Supp. 1551 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Arresting homeless individuals for involuntary, life-sustaining acts they are forced to perform in public, such as sleeping or eating, is unconstitutional when no alternative shelter is available, as it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and the right to travel. Furthermore, seizing and destroying the property of homeless individuals without following established procedures constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs represent a class of approximately 6,000 involuntarily homeless people living in the City of Miami.
- At the time of trial, Miami had fewer than 700 available shelter beds, meaning the vast majority of homeless individuals had no alternative to living in public areas.
- The class members' homelessness was predominantly an involuntary condition resulting from factors such as poverty, mental or physical illness, and lack of social support.
- The City of Miami had a practice of arresting thousands of homeless individuals for life-sustaining conduct such as sleeping, sitting, or eating in public.
- These arrests were made under ordinances prohibiting actions like sleeping in public, loitering, obstructing sidewalks, and being in parks after hours.
- Many arrest reports indicated that the arrested homeless person was not disorderly or posing any harm, but was simply sleeping.
- On multiple occasions, City police and sanitation workers conducted 'sweeps' of areas where homeless people congregated, seizing and destroying their personal property, which included medicine, identification, and clothing.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of homeless persons, filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Miami in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in December 1988.
- The court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in July 1989.
- The court denied plaintiffs' initial application for a preliminary injunction in December 1988.
- The court granted plaintiffs' second application for a preliminary injunction in April 1990, ordering the City to cease destroying the property of homeless persons.
- In March 1991, the court found the City of Miami in civil contempt for violating the April 1990 order.
- The court granted a motion to bifurcate the trial, separating the non-jury trial on the issue of liability from a potential subsequent jury trial on damages.
- The U.S. District Court held the non-jury trial on the issue of liability.
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 the City of Miami's practice of arresting homeless individuals for engaging in essential, life-sustaining conduct in public places, when they have no alternative shelter, violate their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Atkins, Senior District Judge.
Yes, the City of Miami's practice of arresting homeless individuals for engaging in essential, life-sustaining conduct in public places, when they have no alternative shelter, violates their constitutional rights. Reasoning: The court held that the City's practices violated the constitution on several grounds. First, under the Eighth Amendment, arresting homeless individuals for harmless, involuntary acts they are forced to perform in public effectively punishes them for their status of being homeless. Citing Robinson v. California, the court found that because homelessness is an involuntary status and the conduct is an unavoidable consequence of that status (due to lack of shelter), criminalizing such conduct constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Second, under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the ordinances as applied are unconstitutionally overbroad because they punish innocent, inoffensive conduct that is beyond the City's police power to regulate. Third, the arrests violate the Equal Protection Clause by infringing upon the fundamental right to travel. By making it impossible for homeless individuals to lawfully exist in any public space, the City's actions penalize their presence and burden their freedom of movement without a compelling state interest or the use of least intrusive means. Finally, the City's practice of seizing and destroying the personal property of homeless individuals violates the Fourth Amendment. Homeless individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their belongings, and the City’s actions constituted a meaningful and unreasonable interference with their possessory interests, which was not justified by the City's interests in sanitation or logistics.
Analysis:
This case was a landmark decision establishing that the criminalization of homelessness can be unconstitutional. It extended the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'status crimes' to cover conduct that is an inseparable consequence of the involuntary status of being homeless, a significant development in constitutional law. The ruling provided a powerful legal precedent for challenging anti-homeless ordinances across the United States, particularly those that punish sleeping or camping in public when no adequate shelter is available. Its reasoning has shaped subsequent litigation and public policy debates, influencing the Department of Justice and other courts to view such laws as constitutionally suspect.
