2021/03/03 Council Agenda Packet

CEREBRATE LAW, PLLC The Seattle University study found that Seattle spent a minimum of $2,300,000 over five years that was directly attributable to enforcing just 16% of Seattle's criminalization ordinances, while Spokane spent a five year minimum of $1,300,000 that was directly attributable to 75% of Spokane's criminalization ordinances. The Seattle University study notes that "Ordinances that criminalize homelessness by merely removing them from public spaces are treating the symptoms at the expense of efforts to address the cause. Instead of directly addressing the underlying causes, criminalization ordinances merely exacerbate problems affecting homeless people." The authors note that it was clear from the findings that (1) these ordinances are costly and do not address the underlying problems of homelessness; and (2) the redirection of funds currently being used to criminalize homelessness to support affordable housing would result in substantial cost savings. Moreover, the study notes the data still underestimate the total cost spent on criminalizing homelessness because they did not analyze the civil costs of these infractions on the community. This report identifies at least three avenues through which a civil infraction can escalate to criminal punishment: (1) ancillary ordinances, (2) failure to respond ordinances, and (3) the enhancement of criminal sentencing. The United States government has tried to discourage these unconstitutional means of selecting vulnerable -people for entry into the criminal justice system. In 2015, the USDOJ filed an amicus brief in Bell v. City of Boise et al. to address the criminalization of homelessness "Criminally prosecuting those individuals for something as innocent as sleeping, when they have no safe, legal place to go, violates their constitutional rights. Moreover, enforcing these ordinances is poor public policy. Needlessly pushing homeless individuals into the criminal justice system does nothing to break the cycle of poverty or prevent homelessness in the future. Instead, it imposes further burdens on scarce judicial and correctional resources, and it can have long-lasting and devastating effects on individuals' lives." The USDOJ brief notes that "[i]t should be uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a "universal and unavoidable consequence[] of being human" violates the Eighth Amendment.... As the Jones court noted, it is impossible for individuals to avoid "sitting, Tying, and sleeping for days, weeks, or months at a time ... as if human beings could remain in perpetual motion. Once an individual becomes homeless, by virtue of this status certain life necessities (such as sleeping) that would otherwise be performed in private must now be performed in public. Therefore, sleeping in public is precisely the type of "universal and unavoidable" conduct that is necessary for human survival for homeless individuals who lack access to shelter space." "[C]riminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act [or] has engaged in some behavior which society has an interest in preventing. But these concerns are not at issue when, as here, they are applied to conduct that is essential to human life and wholly innocent, such as sleeping. No inquiry is required to determine whether a person is compelled to sleep; we know that no one can stay awake indefinitely. Thus, the Court need not constitutionalize a general compulsion defense to Re: Council Bill 2102-06 Page 2