Injuries alleged by named plaintiffs, in class action seeking
preliminary injunction
843
which would prohibit city from enforcing
program that targeted violation of certain ordinances and thus
allegedly penalized homeless persons for engaging in
life-sustaining activities, were sufficient to invoke
consideration of Eighth Amendment, though none of named
plaintiffs had been convicted of violating ordinances at issue;
one named plaintiff's payment of fine imposed by citation for
violating ordinance was sufficient to subject program to Eighth
Amendment analysis. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.
8. CIVIL RIGHTS 78§268, CRIMINAL LAW 110§1213.8(6)
Class of homeless persons failed to establish violation of Eighth
Amendment warranting preliminary injunction which would prohibit
city from enforcing program that targeted violation of certain
ordinances and thus allegedly penalized homeless persons for
engaging in life-sustaining activities; class failed to show
likelihood of success on merits of Eighth Amendment claim because
program did not punish homeless persons for their "status," but
rather for their conduct. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.
9. CRIMINAL LAW 110§1213.8(6)
Factors to be considered in determining whether challenged law
punishes group of persons for their "status," in violation of
Eighth Amendment, include involuntariness of acquisition of that
characteristic and degree to which individual has control over
characteristic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8.
10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§211(1)
Violation of equal protection necessarily includes finding of
governmental action undertaken with intent to discriminate
against particular individual or class of individuals; such
intent may be evinced by statutory language or in instances where
impact which cannot be explained on neutral ground unmasks
invidious discrimination. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
11. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§211(1)
Neutral law found to have disproportionately adverse effect upon
minority classification will be deemed to violate equal
protection only if impact can be traced to discriminatory
purpose. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
12. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§225.1
Class of homeless persons failed to establish equal protection
violation warranting preliminary injunction which would prohibit
city from enforcing program that targeted violation of certain
ordinances and thus allegedly penalized homeless persons for
engaging in life-sustaining activities; class failed to show
likelihood of success on merits of equal protection claim,
because city's action was not taken with evinced intent to
discriminate against identifiable group and program included
directives for ensuring nondiscriminatory enforcement. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14.
13. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§213.1(1)
Only where challenged governmental action is aimed at suspect
classification, such as race or gender, or premised upon exercise
of fundamental right, will action be subjected to heightened
scrutiny under equal protection clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
14. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§225.1
"Right to sleep" was not fundamental right which would subject
governmental action interfering with such right to heightened
scrutiny under equal protection clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.
14.
15. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§213.1(2)
Legislature's discriminatory purpose in enacting particular law
might not invalidate measure otherwise subject to rational basis
review under equal protection clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
16. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§225.1
Strict scrutiny of city program that targeted violation of
certain ordinances and thus allegedly penalized homeless persons
for engaging in life-sustaining activities, under equal
protection clause, could not be justified on basis that program
constituted impermissible burden on right to travel; program did
not facially discriminate between residents and nonresidents of
city. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
17. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§211(3)
Class of homeless persons was not required to establish that
police officers acted
844
pursuant to "official policy or custom" in
enforcing ordinance that prohibited constructing of structure for
housing accommodations or camping in city park in allegedly
discriminatory manner, in order to establish liability of city
for unconstitutional enforcement of ordinance, where class sought
prospective relief only. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
18. CIVIL RIGHTS 78§268
Class of homeless persons was not entitled to preliminarily
enjoin city from enforcing ordinance that prohibited constructing
of structure for housing accommodations or camping in city park
in manner which allegedly discriminated against homeless persons,
in light of city's continued education of police officers as to
proper enforcement of ordinance and fact that many alleged
violations occurred prior to such instructions; class failed to
demonstrate continuing injury warranting injunction. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14.
19. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 92§82(4)
Overbreadth of statute is challenge which may be successfully
leveled only where First Amendment concerns are at stake.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
20. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 268§594(2)
Class of homeless persons failed to establish that city and state
laws prohibiting construction of structure for housing
accommodations or camping in city park and lodging in structure
or place without permission of owner were unconstitutionally
vague in all of their possible applications; thus, class was not
entitled to preliminary injunction prohibiting city from
enforcing such laws. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 647(i);
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
21. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 349§23
Seizure of property is deemed unreasonable under Fourth Amendment
if government's legitimate interest in search or seizure does not
outweigh individual's interest in property seized. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 4.
22. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 349§28
Proposition that property owner has no reasonable expectation of
privacy when property is left unattended in public place is true
only where property is intentionally abandoned. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 4.
23. CIVIL RIGHTS 78§268
Police officers' alleged confiscation and destruction of private
property belonging to homeless persons did not entitle class of
homeless persons to preliminary injunction prohibiting city from
enforcing program that targeted violation of certain ordinances
and thus allegedly penalized homeless persons for engaging in
life-sustaining activities, in light of city's recent
promulgation of policy to address methods of storing property
which comes into police possession and fact that alleged
likelihood of recurrence was merely speculative. West's
Ann.Cal.Civ.Code §§ 1808, 2080.7; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4.
Bradley S. Phillips, Stephen M. Kristovich, Jeffrey L.
Bleich, and Martin D. Bern, of Munger, Tolles & Olson, San
Francisco, CA and Marcia Rosen, and Diane T. Chin, of the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area, appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.
Linda M. Ross, and Dennis Aftergut, of the San Francisco City
Attorneys' Office and Donald J. Putterman, of Farella, Braun &
Martel and Henry J. Escher III of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Canady, Robertson & Falk, San Francisco, appeared on behalf of
defendant.
Opinion Continued
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park