As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.
While I broadly agree with the sentiment of your post, three strikes laws usually only apply to felonies, and criminalized homelessness is typically misdemeanor stuff. Not a defense of three strike laws, they’re fucking garbage, but the truth matters.
And while I broadly agree with your point, it is far too easy for law enforcement to tack on additional charges like resisting arrest. And, yes, in most states resisting arrest is also a misdemeanor, but incidents can be raised to felony resisting arrest if they involve assault on an officer. Unfortunately, it is easy for any innocent physical contact with police to be interpreted as assault, if an officer decides to portray it that way. The truth matters, but so does ACAB
How many times do you let yourself be arrested non violently, knowing all of your stuff and money is going to be gone before you get back?
And by non violently we mean doing exactly what the cops say, when they say, no questions asked, mid conversation after they’ve declared they’re arresting you. And hoping they don’t beat you up and charge you anyways for annoying them or imagined disrespect.
Putting anyone in adverse contact with police routinely is creating a pathway to being a felon.
You’re correct, of course. All I’m saying is that the anti-homeless laws don’t directly apply to three strikes laws. What you’re pointing out is a feature of all law enforcement contacts, though, including traffic enforcement. Vehicle codes are sprawling and that’s by design, it gives law enforcement nearly carte blanche to initiate a contact first and come up with a justification afterwards. And, of course, each traffic stop for “your windows look tinted” is a potential pathway to a felony. That is, the felony potential stemming from police contacts isn’t unique to homeless laws, it applies to virtually every petty contact police make.
It’s indirect in the same way that court fees and orders to pay private debts are an indirect way to create debtor’s jails. They left a written step out but it is understood to be there by everyone involved in the system.