Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles

Facts

Los Angeles (D) enacted Municipal Code Section 85.02: No person shall use a vehicle parked or standing upon any City street, or upon any parking lot owned by the City of Los Angeles and under the control of the City of Los Angeles or under control of the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise. On September 23, 2010, at a 'Town Hall on Homelessness,' D’s officials announced a renewed commitment to enforcing Section 85.02. Twenty-one officers were to use Section 85.02 to cite and arrest homeless people using their automobiles as 'living quarters,' and were also to distribute to such people information concerning providers of shelter and other social services. Supervisors instructed officers to look for vehicles containing possessions normally found in a home, such as food, bedding, clothing, medicine, and basic necessities. According to those instructions, an individual need not be sleeping or have slept in the vehicle to violate Section 85.02.  Elstein (P), slept in his car. After being rousted by an officer, P read the law and obtained permission for a church to park and sleep in his car because it was private property. Elstein was in his car on a public street waiting for the church to open and was cited for violation. A few weeks later, after several warnings, officers arrested Elstein. The car contained personal belongings, such as boxes and computer equipment, as well as plastic bottles of urine. Jacobs-Elstein was in custody for about seven hours before being released, after which he borrowed money to get his car out of impoundment. He had no criminal record before this arrest. Elstein was again cited while sitting in his car, talking on his cell phone. He had dog food in the car. He told Officer Yoshioka the dog food was from a friend whose dog he would later take to the park. The car also contained salad boxes, water bottles, a portable radio, and bags of clothes. Elstein showed proof that he resided on private property, and thus was not sleeping in his vehicle. The Officer informed him that he need not sleep in his car to violate Section 85.02. The Officer gave Elstein a flyer that claimed to provide guidance on how to comply with Section 85.02. It provided information only on RV parks, where Elstein could not park his car, and shelters, where he could not keep his belongings during the day. Taylor (P) sells his artwork at a booth on Venice Beach, where he works every day. An officer issued a warning to Taylor for sleeping in his small two-door car through the night, in violation of Section 85.02. Taylor then began sleeping on the sidewalk, which is legal. Taylor began sleeping at Winter Shelter in Culver City. He rented a storage facility to get his excess property out of the car, though he kept his sleeping bag with him. Taylor was arrested and his car impounded for violating Section 85.02 when he was sitting in his car to get out of the rain. The vehicle contained one tin of food, clothing, and a bottle of urine. Taylor informed the officers that he slept at Winter Shelter and not in his car and that he had an identification card issued by Winter Shelter to prove it. He was arrested nonetheless. Warivonchik (P) is epileptic, and after suffering a significant head injury, is unable to work full time. She began living in her RV. She is also a member of a church in Santa Monica where she legally parks her RV at night. She was driving her RV through Venice - taking her artwork to a local fair - when she was pulled over for failing to turn off her left blinker. She was not cited for the blinker but was given a written warning for violating Section 85.02 and told that she would be arrested if ever seen again in Venice with her RV. Cagle (P) was cited and arrested for violating Section 85.02. In Cagle's van were clothing, bedding, boxed food, bottles of medicine, and a portable radio. Cagle explained to the officers that he was not sleeping in his vehicle. Officer Yoshioka's partner responded that sleeping is not the only criteria for violating Section 85.02. Ps sued D. Eventually, the case was dismissed because Ps failed to raise a vagueness challenge in their First Amended Complaint. Ps appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.