Southern California hits the ball!

California Senator Carol Liu (25th District) has sponsored CA SB 608. The Bill seeks to modify 647(e) (see bolded text below) and add new text.

647(e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it. This subdivision does not apply to conduct that is protected pursuant to Section 53.81 of the Civil Code.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_608_bill_20150227_introduced.htm

The new text, 53.8 and 53.81, contains classifications and protections intended to defend the rights of homeless people.

Foreshadow

Some were surprised by the ruling by the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit on Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles. Anyone that bothered to listen to the Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles proceedings probably wasn't surprised. The bench was obviously upset by the case, as presented by Los Angeles, and their assertive opinion was a hope filled reminder of common decency. The citable result of Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles (2014): 'car habitation' is no longer a crime, within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. A serious question remains; how long before new 'ugly law' strikedown workarounds become freshly oppressive ordinances?

More recently, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District ruled on Allen v. City Of Sacramento. To me, it isn't clear if the 3rd rejected arguments because of filing technicalities or because of substance, although the opinion is laced with 'sleep is a crime' sentiments. While the 3rd rejected many of the arguments, they did acknowledge equal enforcement as a problem that needed to be addressed. My guess is that the 3th was very aware of the strong 9th opinion, given the similar class of victims of oppression, and didn't want to be embarrassed by the 9th striking down the ruling in Allen v. City Of Sacramento.

Meanwhile, back at the PeaceCamp 2011/2012 case; Ed's procedural trivia appeal held, and the substance of the matter is headed back to the Santa Cruz Appellate. I assume the Santa Cruz Appellate will rubber stamp the initial ruling, yet again, and then perhaps an appeal on substance will occur. Or perhaps not. It's difficult for me to know because, in practice, the case is not mine.

My overall impression; the United States Supreme Court ruling in Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville (1972), as poetic as it is at times, has been and will continue to be ignored at all levels of executive and legislative influence. Just as the debates leading to the 9th Amendment, as well at the 9th Amendment itself, have been and continue to be ignored. Perhaps because the wealthy are not often found sleeping and when they are, they are excused from any rules of law that might apply.

#LegalizeDreaming