The first of its kind order stops the bearing of the homeless camp in California

The city of Valecho Bay places the newly opened power of the California cities to clear the stray bearings of the test.

Last month, a federal judge stopped the city from dismantling the improvised shelter of 64-year-old Evelyn Alfred, who she erected nearly two years ago on an empty strip of land to a residential neighborhood. The decision proves that even as more cities in California Leave on camps with Placements and penaltyThere are open paths for people who have not given up to fight.

“I think now this shows that there is hope,” says Andrea Hanson, a lawyer who represents Alfred and also leads the Berkli -based help organization, where are we going?

Before the US Supreme Court last summer in a case outside the grants, Oregon, Alfred’s victory may not have been a big deal. Then the legal precedent said it was “cruel and unusual” to punish people to sleep out if they had nowhere to go. As a result, cities had to be careful to offer shelter before clearing a camp. If they didn’t, a judge can get very well and stop the vacation.

Everything changed in June when the court caused a dramatic change by finding, in Pass grant vs. Johnsonthis Cities can ban people Since the creation of homeless bearings, even if there are no shelter beds.

The recent order that stops Valecho from clearing Alfred’s camp is seemingly to be the first such federal order after the grant decision, according to several legal experts interviewed by Calmatters.

“Cities and other government formations use the grant solution as if it is a green light (to clear the bearings),” says Anthony Prince, one of the lawyers representing Alfred. According to him, this decision proves that thinking is wrong.

Representatives of Valecho did not respond to the requests for an interview with Calmatters.

Many urban leaders and even the democratic governor of California, Gavin News, cheered the Supreme Court’s decision, accepting that this would give the local authorities to remove the camps that have taken up sidewalks, city parks and other public spaces. Defenders for the rights of non -corresponding people were horrified, the worried cities will now indiscriminately criminalize people only for being homeless.

But this recent case of Valecho shows that it is not so simple. As a result, legal experts and other lawyers representing homeless plaintiffs throughout the country pay attention to Alfred’s struggle to remain set.

“I think we all be careful about seeing what the courts will do,” says Ron Hochbaum, a law professor and director of the clinic for intercession for stray families Bucco at the University of Pacific.

The fight of Evelyn Alfred’s court battle

The apartment that Alfred is struggling to preserve is made of tarpaulins, wood and other materials and has a roof, windows and a locking door, according to court documents. Her lawyers claim that this is the only thing that protects Alfred – who walks with a cane and carries a rear bracket due to her osteoarthritis and other medical conditions – from the elements.

For the first time, the city of Valecho informed Alfred of his intention to remove his camp in October, and Alfred is suing shortly thereafter. In November, a federal judge temporarily blocked the city to clear Alfred’s camp by issuing a temporary restraining order – an order that continues until the court held a hearing on the matter.

In February, the court made a preliminary order, which is much more profit: it lasts longer and comes only after the two sides have made extensive arguments in court and the judge has had enough time to discuss. This seems to be the first issued in the federal court after the grant. This means that Alfred may remain placed until her case is settled or went to the test.

Alfred is in several lists of waiting for homes at affordable prices, but not yet offered accommodation, according to her lawyers. When he asked where he could go, if he had to leave his campsite, the city’s lawyer said he could not camp anywhere else in Valecho, according to court documents. The city does not provide shelter or transitional housing. Therefore, Alfred’s lawyers claim that she will be harmful if she is forced to leave her camp, especially because of her age, physical and mental disabilities and as a woman, her vulnerability to sexual assault.

The US District Judge Den Cogssi stood on Alfred.

“Removing the applicant’s shelter while he knows that the plaintiff has no alternatives, he will probably expose

It is more likely to be confronted, depriving it of protecting against the elements, hygiene facilities and access to basic things to live, creating a certain and specific danger to the plaintiff’s safety and well -being, “she writes.

If the city deliberately puts Alfred in danger, it may violate its right to a “proper process” under the 14th amendment, writes Cogi.

The city, on the other hand, claims that it must be allowed to remove Alfred’s camp, since the camp is a health hazard caused by human waste, its improvised housing disrupts multiple construction standards and it damages a city fence in the erection of the home.

“The plaintiff was noticed correctly and additional time was provided to eliminate her camp,” lawyers wrote about the city in a court case. “Now the city must be allowed to apply its law and remove the applicant’s camp.”

But Coggins found no proof that Alfred’s camp was some “heavy” concerns about health and safety.

The case will now continue to test or agreement. The city has applied for dismissal that Coggins must hear in May.

What does this mean to future plaintiffs to homeless?

Before 2018, the plaintiffs of the homeless often used the 14th amendment (the basis for Alfred’s victory) and the 4th amendment (which prevents the government from unjustified searches and seizures to challenge the bearing of camps in court.

Then the Federal Court of Appeal of the ninth round ruled through Martin V. Forest This punishment of restless people for camping in a public place, if there is nowhere to go, violates the ban on the 8th amendment for cruel and unusual punishment. After that, 8 amendment became a weapon for the selection of lawyers representing non -exclusive people.

And there are results. In 2022, lawyers using 8 amendment to sue San Francisco won a great victory: an order that stopped the city Since the implementation of several lawsuit laws, as long as there are not enough beds for shelter.

At that time, last summer, the US Supreme Court decided that the grates for gratuitous funds did not deal with cruel and unusual punishment, banning the camps, despite the lack of shelter beds. Suddenly 8 amendment was out of the table. Now the plaintiffs homeless and the lawyers who represent them turn to other strategies. Valecho’s case proves that they can still work, even as cities across California Disable campsS

Alfred’s attorneys also claimed that the city of Valecho had violated the Disabilities Act by not sheltering Alfred’s disabilities as he tried to clear her camp. Cogi disagreed because the city provided Alfred to move and submit his application for help.

“I think we all be careful to see what the courts will do.”

Ron Hochbaum, Professor of Law, University of Pacific

But legal experts said the claims of the Disability Act are likely to appear in future cases. In 2023 A study of homeless CaliforniansOne of the fifth said they used a cane, a walker, a wheelchair, or other mobility help, according to the UCSF Benioff initiative. Participants in the study They also reported that shelters and subsidized homes were not available.

“This is certainly a problem,” said Laura Riley, a social justice lawyer and a professor of law at UC Berkeley. “We know that people who are not disproportionate have disabilities. The applicant in this case has multiple disabilities, both mobility and mental health disabilities. So to make sure that they worship ADA’s defenses for the non -volatile population is important. And we know that this does not happen, especially during cleaning. “

Alfred dilution may not stand alone for a long time. The same lawyers who represent her and judge the city of Berkli to stop the elimination of a camp on the streets of 8th and Harrison. Another lawsuit is trying to stop the camp in the city of Fairfax in Marin County.

“While the localities and the state make the right investments in a shelter and housing,” Hochbaum said, “This lawsuit will continue.”