Transcript: Fighting The Criminalization of Unhoused People with Disability Rights 
Presented by Erin Neff, DREDF Staff Attorney EmilyRose Johns, Senior Associate at Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta
May 23, 2023


Erin: Hello everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. My name's Erin. I'm a staff attorney at Disability Rights Education Defense Fund. I've spent the majority of my career doing housing law, especially eviction defense, and recently came to Jetta a few months ago. EmilyRose Johns is the other panelist who will be joining me. She has done a lot of litigation under house for unhoused people, including some of the cases we'll be going over today. And she is a senior associate at... Should know the name of the law firm, for the law firm, Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta. So hopefully she'll be joining us in a second. As we wait, I'll just go over the agenda. So this is gonna be an hour long presentation. We are gonna start briefly, which is sort of an overview of the problem going over some stats in the past couple of years of the growing number of people who are left unhoused and on shelter. The increase of laws that are criminalizing, people who are unhoused and the impact of that. And then EmilyRose and I will be going over the relevant disability rights laws and federal laws that can be used in bringing litigation to stop the criminalization of unhoused people. And we'll be doing an overview of some of the cases and then we'll have about 15, 10 to 15 minutes at the end for questions. As Tina mentioned, if you have technological issues you can reach out to Tina and put it in the chat. My colleague Michelle is also gonna be helping to answer some questions in the chat as they come up. But we do have time for questions in the end. Also, I know I've had problems with my microphone in the past and using the computer that I'm on. I'm hoping this headset I have will resolve those issues. But for any reason you can't hear me, anyone who has the ability to speak, please stop me 'cause I probably won't be able to see the chat. Please stop me and let me know. And then, oh, and it looks like EmilyRose is here. Hi Emily, I did a little intro of you, but if you wanna introduce yourself real quick and then you can move right on into your slides. Already did the agenda. 


EmilyRose: Oh, thank you very much. I apologize for being tardy. I had trouble finding the link. (chuckles) My name is EmilyRose Johns, as I'm sure I was introduced. I'm a senior associate at Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta. A small civil rights firm in Oakland, California. And I've been litigating issues for unhoused folks since 2017 in the Bay Area. 


Erin: Thanks Emily. And just move to the next slide. 


EmilyRose: Great, so how did we get to this explosive level of houselessness around the country? You know, there are a lot of issues including the rise of cost of housing and the lack of affordable housing. Some of that is intentional, I think with, as city planning is concerned, some of that is not putting money that cities are required to put towards affordable housing and housing options for people experiencing homelessness. And that's, I'm seeing that litigated a little bit. It's a little out of my expertise, but I'm enjoy learning about ways to kind of enforce that in certain cities and something I think we should pay attention to. So with the rise in the cost of housing, we also have, you know, wage stagnation for decades from '18, or excuse me, 1985 to 2020, the median rent price across the nation increased by 149% in comparison income through only 35%. And people with disabilities who are on SSI or SSDI, they make sub minimum, or excuse me, they don't make enough money to pay rent and they also can't work too much because if they end up with too much money in their bank account, they could lose the benefits that help them live and make ends meet. So they end up with sub minimum wage jobs or part-time work or ad hoc work. And especially in a place like Bay Area, it's not enough to live on. From 2007 to 2017, we've seen encampments increase by 1,342%. And nationwide unsheltered populations have increased 20%. In California specifically, and I believe these statistics that I'm about to discuss come from point in time counts and even the night circuit in Martin versus City of Boise, which we'll talk about in a little bit, the night circuit recognized that these point in time counts are traditionally an under count, both of the existence of people experiencing homelessness in certain cities, but also of these kinds of statistics based on self-reporting, self-reporting for people with disabilities especially, they may not recognize that they are a person with a disability, may not have ever had a diagnosis, but would nonetheless meet the definition. Especially when we consider what the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act defines persons with disabilities as. According to these counts, we have a population California of Black residents of 5.5%, but our unhoused population makes up 25%. And in some bigger cities like Oakland, San Francisco, that gap is even wider. Population of unhoused people over 50 years of age is 45%. Population of unhoused people with disabilities and self-reported disabilities is 45%. In Los Angeles, there are varying estimates that indicate that as many as 76% of unhoused people have disabilities. This includes substance abuse or substance use, I like to call it and poor. And these kinds of issues are exacerbated with inaccessible shelters. Shelters that are inaccessible for people with both physical disabilities but also mental health disabilities. 


Erin: And just to go off of what Emily said, that the stats in it, because it's hard to count everyone, there are numbers that are even higher for the number of people with disabilities that are unhoused. And then, so when it comes to criminalizing homelessness, oftentimes there's this assumption that people who are unhoused or more likely to make crimes are more likely to be violent. And in research done showing whether there was a correlation or an increase in crime, when their growth of encampments in certain areas have shown that in the vast majority of situations there are no correlation. Aside from when you have laws like you can't sleep outside. Obviously you're gonna have an increase in citations for laws like that. But what we think of as violent crimes, there's an increase in that. So a lot of the laws that we see that are criminalizing homelessness are things that are trying to prevent people from being outside. So bans on sleeping outside, bans on camping outside. Bans on storing items outside. And these can kind of look different in different ways. So sometimes it might be a band on using bedding outside, but not sleeping outside. And we'll get into a little bit more about case law that has said that. And there are also people who tried to use disability laws like the ADA to stop camping and what is considered by some people blocking sidewalks and ways to pass through different streets and whatnot. They're bans on panhandling, sometimes bans on aggressive panhandling. A lot of cities in California recently have been banning the use of RVs or oversized vehicles or sleeping in your vehicles. And we'll be going over a couple of cases later that are specific to those types of bans. And then sometimes these are referred to, in general, as quality of life laws. So this kind of includes a lot of what we just said. And a lot, oftentimes there are a lot of fines associated with this. And citations there often will be considered a misdemeanor and sometimes they can really grow over time. So some laws will have it where, you know, you might have a hundred dollars fine for one day, but you could potentially get it for every day that you're sleeping outside. And so that will really increase a lot. And then some situations, if you're not paying those fines, you can be in put in jail, incarcerated, prosecuted for that. And I think as a practitioner, as you're looking through these laws and deciphering them, it's also really important to keep in mind that whilst in some cities, in some places they're very explicit about not wanting unhoused people in their city, sometimes these laws are done in the name of health and safety, environmental protection, in the name of disability rights, and you kind of have to read between the lines to see the intentions of the city. So as a quick example, and I'll go into this in more detail a little later, but with some of the RV bans that we've seen, the city's passing it as saying, well this is a health and safety measure. This is about traffic safety. We don't want pedestrians getting hit, so we can't have these RVs blocking views and putting people at risk. Even though a lot of times in these situations, there isn't much evidence that there have been any problems prior to passing the law. And so what is the impact of criminalization? So a few more stats here, to put it in perspective, since September of 2021, California as a state has cleared, torn down approximately a hundred encampments a month and removed what the state called over a thousand tons of trash. But what we know is that this is not trash. These are people's personal possessions. And this is also a very important disability rights issue because if you are a person with a disability, oftentimes you might be taking medication or be using certain aids like prosthetics, like wheelchairs, crutches that you need. And if you're not present in the moment that an encampment is happening or you cannot gather your items quick enough in the short time of police officer is giving you to move, then you can lose those things and those things can and will be thrown away in an encampment clearing. And a couple of stories that I've just heard are people having their prosthetic limbs thrown away. People having their medication thrown away and in a very sad instance, a person having the ashes of one of their parents thrown away in an encampment sweep. So we know that it's not just trash despite what the state might call it. The cost of criminalizing a person from enforcing it, from putting up signs that say, don't sleep here, the court costs and all of that, that can be upwards of $31,000 a year to criminalize an individual person. Whereas, it can cost a lot less to provide supportive housing to a person who's unhoused, who might have specific needs. And that could be approximately $10,000 a year. And then when it comes to criminalization, it often leads to this sort of endless cycle of being part of the criminal justice system as these laws put people in more direct interaction with police. And this is particularly hard on people on Black and Brown people who are more often the victims of police violence. And then I'll turn it back to Emily. 


EmilyRose: Great. So there's a lot of conflict between whether the solutions are political or legal. And what we know by being, you know, attentive citizens in our respective cities, counties, states, and this nation is that there's no political bill to aid people living in poverty, especially people living in poverty out of doors. And so increasingly we've been using the law to enforce the rights of people experiencing homelessness to exist. This litigation is important, unfortunately, very little of it results in people being housed as a result, which is what obviously individuals need to avoid houselessness or homelessness. But it is important and fulfilling work to advocate on behalf of those folks so that they can exist. So that they are not subject to incarceration, fines, the increasing mental turmoil and distress of being forced to move day in and day out. Having all of their belongings taken away in addition to the average, you know, normal everyday stressors of a person experiencing homelessness, such as where are they gonna get food? Where are they going to be able to bathe and use the bathroom adding, where are they going to be able to sleep to that as a really treacherous thing that these sweeps do. To that end, we've used successfully, somewhat successfully, and (chuckles) somewhat unsuccessfully in the past, a variety of federal laws. Including the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the 8th Amendment that certain laws and certain actions violate the cruel and unusual punishments clause in the excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment. We've used the 4th Amendment to stop illegal searches and seizures of people's property. And then the 14th Amendment due process equal protection and state created danger, which we'll talk a little bit about, and then also the right to travel enshrined in the Constitution and that certain types of sweeps or practices are violation of that right to travel. Specific to the protections enshrined in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA provides that, "No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, excuse me, the services, programs or activities of a public entity or be subject to discrimination by such entity." This means that a public entity may not directly or through contractual or other arrangements, deny qualified individual with a disability, the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the program, or use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability. Meaning that, that burden people with disabilities differently than it burdens people who do not have disabilities. Public entities are required to make reasonable modifications for their policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability. The exception is where the public entity can demonstrate that making that modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity. And we'll talk a little bit about this on the next slide, but what this means is that it's incredibly important when you're litigating Title II claims on behalf of persons with disabilities, that you identify a program, activity or service and that you find a way to define that favorably for your clients. And as I said, we'll talk a little bit more about that on the next slide, or excuse me on the slide after that. (chuckles) The problematic use of disability rights law can be seen in places like the Tozer v. Portland case. It was also something that was utilized in the coalition. I can't remember the LA coalition case, why can't I remember the name of it? 


Erin: It was like the Human Rights Association. 


EmilyRose: Yeah. 


Erin: Is that what you're talking about where they created what seemed like a good organization? 


EmilyRose: Yeah. And what it looks like is that people, you know, not in my backyarders businesses or business districts will use disability rights law to say that people experiencing homelessness cannot exist in the public places that they exist because that creates access issues for persons with disabilities. Persons such wheelchair users or people who use aids for walking or ambulation. Tozer v. Portland being one of those examples. It was a lawsuit brought saying that an encampment had to be cleared from the sidewalk because it violated the rights of the plaintiffs who were persons with disabilities that violated their rights to use the sidewalks. And their position was that, you know, there's nothing that the city owed the persons with disabilities that they were seeking to have removed from sidewalks. They didn't need to offer them any alternative place to go or any meaningful assistance. And so, there's a lot of tension, right? Between people experiencing homelessness who are, a lot of people experiencing homelessness have significant disabilities. And a large portion of the population are persons with self-identified, if not diagnosed disabilities. And it puts them at odds with folks with disabilities who are housed or being utilized in these different kinds of lawsuits on behalf of business districts or nimby. Where do we go, Berkeley versus Caltrans. This is where I wanted to talk a little bit about how important it is if you're using Title II, the Americans with Disabilities Act, to identify the program and define the program that your clients are seeking to benefit from and that they're not able to benefit from. This case arose out of a pandemic era policy from Caltrans that instead of their normal operations, when an encampment is on their property, which they if identify encampment and they wanna move it, they will give 48 hours notice that they're gonna come in and do a sweep. And then they come in and do the sweep. And in this case, during the pandemic, they had changed their guidance and they said, "We have this interim guidance." "We have four different levels of encampments and at every level, even at the most critical level, level one, we are going to work with different community partners, including the city and private contracted outreach providers to see if there's alternative places for people to go." There were a lot of, you know, hotel rooms that had become available through the pandemic, a lot of other housing options, which goes to show that we have the ability when there's the political will to create housing for individuals who are experiencing homelessness. And Caltrans had cleared an encampment and when they were clearing the encampment, they were interrupting that or attempting to clear the encampment, they were interrupting the process of getting people connected to the services that were available. In violation, we argued of their own guidelines, in part because the persons who were living on that land were people with disabilities who were harder to connect with accessible housing options or shelter options. There were people who, by reason of their disabilities, could not go to shelters, congregate shelters. Through a temporary restraining order, we actually built in enough time for that group of individuals to be able to be housed in one of those housing options that was available during the pandemic. But then Caltrans cleared a bunch of encampments nearby and those folks moved on to the land that had just been cleared, creating the set of circumstances for this case where there was another TRO in preliminary injunction on behalf of this new set of plaintiffs. And our judge, Judge Chen ruled that our clients were entitled to a six month delay in the removal of the encampment because as persons with disabilities, it would take longer for them to be connected to services than Caltrans was currently giving them. Caltrans appealed and this went to the Ninth Circuit. And the Ninth Circuit after the clients had already benefited fully from the preliminary injunction that was issued after the six months had already expired. The Ninth Circuit said that, that six month delay constituted a fundamental alteration of the program that Caltrans was running. The way the Ninth Circuit defined the program was different than the way that I argued and I think that the plaintiff's team believed that the interim guidance really defined the program. But it said that there was a fundamental delay because what the program said was at the point that Caltrans has decided to move folks, which was after they were supposed to allow time for people to connect with different services and use their partners to connect persons experiencing homelessness with housing options, that the six month delay was a fundamental alteration of the program that Caltrans was running, which was only 72 or 48 hours notice, for a encampment closure. So the ruling was disappointing in that manner, but it did say a couple of positive things, which I think are really I important to uplift. One is that Caltrans argued in front of the Ninth Circuit quite vociferously that they were not operating any program activity or service to which Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act would apply. And the Ninth Circuit said, "Absolutely not." Of course you are operating a program when you're doing encampment closures, a program activity or service is anything a government does. The Ninth Circuit had said that before, but said that very clearly and even to these kind of brief operations. And the Ninth Circuit also acknowledged that at least at the preliminary injunction stage, it was enough to identify that clients had disabilities, but that this injunction applied, you know, to the group, the entire group of individuals, not just every person who specifically identified with a disability. And it did acknowledge that there was some right to reasonable accommodation for encampment clearings. Six month delay was fundamental alteration, but because Caltrans operated a program activity or service, it could not deny people with disabilities the benefits of that activity, program activity or service. We can go to the next slide. Reed v. Town of Gilbert was a Supreme Court decision that held that you cannot restrict the content of a sign and to do so would be held to strict scrutiny. And how this case has been applied most recently in the Seventh Circuit was in this case Norton versus City of Springfield. And the Seventh Circuit held that relying on Reed v. Town of Gilbert that an ordinance restricting oral requests for donations was content based and presumptively unconstitutional would be held to strict scrutiny under the logic of Reed v. Town of Gilbert. And that case recently went, there was a request for sarcerari that was denied. So that Seventh Circuit holding in Norton v. City of Springfield is good law and can be used to help if you're seeing ordinances or policies that restrict panhandling in certain areas or in the city at large. 


Erin: Oh. 


EmilyRose: I'm sorry. 


Erin: Yeah, sorry. (chuckles) 


EmilyRose: Go ahead, please. 


Erin: But feel free to jump in. It's such a big case that we could both probably talk about it. (chuckles) So Martin versus the City of Boise, this was a big Ninth Circuit circuit case where the City of Boise had been criminalizing individuals sleeping outside, giving citations, taking them to court. And sort of the big ruling in this was that the Ninth Circuit held that you cannot criminalize a person for their status of being unhoused. And part of that status includes sleeping outside, sitting outside and certain basically existing outside. And they held that under the 8th Amendment that this is considered cruel and unusual punishment because you're essentially criminalizing someone for their status. The court held that certain conduct and actions could be prohibited under criminal law, but simply existing as non housed person cannot, as specifically when there are no available shelter beds. So it is essentially outside of the person's control, whether not they can sleep outside because there are no available shelter beds. And I think one thing that's really important for a practitioner to keep in mind is what does it mean for there to be no available shelter beds? Because, and Martin v. Boise specifically, some of the main shelters in Boise were religious based shelters that had specific limitations on them. So for example, one of the shelters, someone could come and stay there for about 17 days, but then after 17 days they had to enter into, I believe a Christian based program. And if they chose not to enter that program, they could no longer stay there. There are other limitations such as in those 17 days, if you left for whatever reason and tried to come back, you were not welcomed back into the shelter. So that effectively put limitations on what was available as a shelter bed because in Martin v. Boise, the shelter had said, "Yes, there are available shelter beds." But luckily the court took a deeper look in that and said, you know, on its face it might appear that there are some available shelter beds, but with all of these limitations, there are effectively no shelter beds available for a significant number of people. So in bringing potential Martin claims, I think it's really important to look at, you know, how you are defining an available shelter bed in your particular city or situation. Martin was also sort of specific to criminal laws that were criminalizing people who were unhoused and was a little bit narrow in saying that you cannot have a total prohibition on being outside, but certain limitations might be okay, but in a subsequent case of the Ninth Circuit, City of Grant's Pass, which we don't have a separate slide on, but I'll touch on briefly. That came after Martin, it sort of expanded a little bit on Martin because the City of Grant's Pass tried to get around Martin by first imposing civil penalties on people who are unhoused, so not criminal penalties, which was prohibited under Martin. And then they tried to criminalize what they considered conduct and not the status of being unhoused. So the law said it's okay to sleep outside but you cannot sleep with bedding. Bedding is conduct, we're just prohibiting bedding. But the Ninth Circuit saw through that and held that the civil laws led to criminal penalties. So it essentially was still criminalizing people. You can't circumvent the holding of Martin by including an extra civil step in there. And they also said that the use of bedding is still criminalizing the status of a person. So to say you can sleep but you can't sleep with bedding is effectively banning sleeping. And the court held that the things that are part of existing outside, like sleeping with bedding, those things are also protected on a Martin when there are no available shelter beds. And then Emily, EmilyRose, if you wanna add to that as well. 


EmilyRose: I was actually gonna talk about Grants Pass as well if you did not, but I will note one thing that I've seen in my practice that we haven't litigated yet, but is a teetering on a Martin issue, which is when folks resist moving their belongings, when they're getting swept, police will arrest them, put them in the back of a police car or take them even to jail. And once they've done that the person's belongings are, "Abandoned," and then they've used that as an excuse to remove them, remove the belonging. And so we've seen both people being just arrested and placed in the back of a cop car and then released after their encampment has been swept. And people who have been taken to jail out here in Alameda County and you know, placed in jail overnight or over the weekend and at that point having their belongings removed. And that's, you know, teeter's on a Martin issue but hasn't been litigated to my knowledge yet. 


Erin: Thank you. And I know that there's a case recent, this isn't covered in here, but there's a case recently you brought in San Francisco by the ACLU and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, that sort of under Martin as well. And one of the issues they look into is the failure of the city to bag and tag people's belongings. What people are supposed to do is take the belongings, store them, make the person aware of where they are, give them the opportunity to take it. But as EmilyRose is saying, that is not happening. So hope it'd be great to see some litigation on that soon. In addition to the San Francisco case. 


EmilyRose: Yeah, that's the coalition on homelessness versus city and county of San Francisco. And it's a really important case I think for us to follow 'cause there's been a citywide preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge because the city cannot follow their own policies and protect people's belongings. 


Erin: Yeah, so the next couple of cases we're gonna go over are cases that were settled or had some other conclusions to kind of show that, well it's I guess sort of a lawyer's dream to kind of make really great interesting case law. Ultimately, we're trying to improve the lives of people who are unhoused and a lot of times we can do that through a settlement. So Glover v. City of Laguna Beach, this is where there was a city ordinance that like made the cases we talked already was prohibiting sleeping and camping and being in public spaces like beaches and parks. And there are certain limitations on when you could be in a beach. And of course Laguna Beach is such a wealthy area and I believe there's only one local shelter that they originally had to establish because of a previous case where they were sued and the local shelter was essentially inaccessible to people with disabilities. The shelter had spaces available for 45 people, but the space, the beds were all mats that were on the floor. So that is clearly gonna be very difficult for people with certain physical and mobility disabilities if you are in a wheelchair coming down from the wheelchair to sleep on a mat, if you have chronic pain issues like that makes the shelter very inaccessible. So this case was brought under the ADA as well as section 504, 8th amendment, 14th amendment. You see a lot of the same laws being brought up as legal claims these cases. And ultimately that case was settled. So in the settlement there was a lot of consideration taken into for people with disabilities and how to make the shelter more accessible. So, as part of the shelter service, there were vans that would take people to the shelter. Unfortunately the van wouldn't it take people back from the shelter if there are no available spaces. So some processes around the van was changed, so it included wheelchair lift to help people who are in wheelchairs. The shelter was originally a congregate shelter. So that included, the settlement included, having a pilot program for select separate sleeping spaces based on people's disabilities. So for one prohibiting factor for some people with disabilities from going into the shelter is that it is often a congregate living space. The communal living space that can be very difficult for people with severe anxiety disorders. It can also be difficult for people who might have a service animal who can't be in a big public space like that. And the settlement also required specific training for the people in the shelter on how to interact and help people with disabilities. It included a process for people with disabilities to ask for reasonable modifications and reasonable accommodations within the shelter and then appeal process if those accommodations or modifications were denied. So that is one example of how, through a settlement, the shelter was made more accessible to people with disabilities. Another instance of this happening is Navarro v. City of Mountain View. I was counsel on this case, this is one of those cases where the law was passed under the guise of health and safety. So in Mountain View, which again is a very wealthy city, that's one of the main campuses of Google in the South Bay. And they pass a law saying that anything that is a narrow street, which if I remember correctly was 40 feet or less, could not have an oversized vehicle on it or essentially an RV parked on that street. And they said that this was a safety issue, that this was a traffic issue. Although there had been no documented, we never saw any evidence of a collision that was caused by an RV on a, "Narrow street," or a pedestrian that was hit. No real evidence that it was a safety issue. But what we did have were city council minutes where they're complaining about the increase of the unhoused population, particularly living in RVs throughout the city and then also getting complaints from people living in homes about the RVs. So another great thing to do in practicing is when a city is passing a law like this is to look at meeting agendas and meeting minutes and what led to the passage of that law and bringing public record acts requests to see the things that were discussed before that law was passed. 'Cause that can really help you get a sense of it if it's truly a safety issue or not. So in this case it was not. And the ban on oversized vehicles covered, I believe about over 80% of the city and then other preexisting laws on parking, like they much of the city does not allow overnight parking. So when you combined all those laws together, it effectively banned RVs from the City of Mountain View. So this case was brought, again, under a lot of the same legal claims of the previous cases we had mentioned, including the right to travel, which is a little bit more specific to RV cases. And what happened is we ultimately settled this case. So the city agreed to change some of their preexisting parking laws, including overnight restrictions to provide for at least three miles of parking available to RVs. And then at the time of settlement it was more than three miles, but they could never go under three miles during the course of the settlement. As I also provided for a process for reasonable modifications as well as providing maps to people to show them where they could park, that was actually a big source of contention throughout settlements is they're willing to do certain things but not adequately explain to people in RVs how to obtain those things such as where to park. It also initially they wanted to be able to immediately tow people, which is where a lot of due process claims came up because you're towing a person's home without giving them adequate prior notice. So as part of the settlement, a person would first get a ticket, which ideally it would not be a monetary thing, but it's better than an immediate tow. So they'd first get a ticket that would give them 72 hours notice to move the vehicle before that they would be towed as opposed to immediately being towed. And so that was a way in which we were able to provide more security for people living in RVs. And I think for people living in RVs in a city like Mountain View, they're in a really expensive place where unfortunately they can't afford the housing there, but it enables them to stay near their family networks near their support networks. And for a lot of our clients near the medical treatment that they needed, it had been seeking for years in a city that they grew up in and then were eventually priced out of. In Vannucci versus City of Sonoma. This was a stipulated preliminary injunction. So again we've got Anti-Camping Ordinance that was leading to the force removal of several people. And in this particular situation, people were asking for reasonable accommodations to postpone the sweep of an encampment. And as people were coming in trying to clear people, they weren't giving people adequate notice of where available shelter was that people could move to. So the case was brought bringing in disparate impact claim. So this is essentially where on its face, a palsy or program may seem neutral, doesn't specifically call out people with disabilities. But the implementation of those program disproportionately impacts people with disabilities, particularly where accommodations and modifications are not provided for people with disabilities. So eventually the city and the plaintiffs entered into a stipulated preliminary injunction. And under this, the city would have to, before taking an enforcement action against an unhoused individual, they would have to first give them reasonable notice and provide them with information about adequate shelter where they could move to. This in thus enabling a person with a disability more time to gather their belongings and hopefully an adequate space to move to. And it defined more what an adequate shelter was so that it's not just a mat on a floor, but the city would have to take into consideration specific factors, including a person's individual's disability, whether or not they have a service animal, the person's gender. And they also had to store the belongings of the unhoused individual and the shelter needed to be provided for at least 30 consecutive days. So something that is available but only available for a few days would not be adequate. So again, another example of a good outcome through an agreement between both parties as opposed to the court making the decision. And then, so that leaves us to about, we've got about 10 minutes left for questions and lemme check out the chat. Thank you so much, Michelle, for adding links. So if people wanna put questions in the chat or I don't know, oh, if people can... I don't know if I'm in control of this, but if people are able to unmute themselves or Tina, if you know how to do that, to unmute people. I'm ashamed that this many years into the remote world, I don't know how to unmute someone on a webinar, but if someone could help with that then we can take people's questions live or people can add it to the chat. 


Tina: Yes. Hi Erin, this is Tina. I can allow people to talk, they can indicate in the chat if they would like to or raise their hand. 


Erin: I also just wanna add like, you know, I don't know everyone who is on this call. I know my colleague Michelle is on the call who has been litigating for a really long time. So if there's any practitioners on the call that want to add to what we said too, I know that it's impossible to go over it every case in an hour. So feel to, if you don't have a question, but want to add some really great suggestions and advice to unmute yourself and do that as well. 


EmilyRose: Yeah, and while we're waiting on folks, and people should feel free to interrupt me, but I wanted to add, I talked about when we were talking about Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, being able to hold municipalities accountable for their contractors discrimination or failure to accommodate folks with disabilities. You know, one thing we see a lot in Bay Area cities is that the cities themselves are not doing, they're not operating the shelters that are available. They're not employing the individuals who are doing outreach to connect persons who are experiencing homelessness with what few services the city or county has made available. They're using contractors. And one thing we've been thinking about that we haven't really done yet is litigation against certain contractors or certain municipalities that use the same contractors to perform outreach services where those outreach services are not offering reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities or adequate services. And from what we can tell, it doesn't even seem like the city's using, you may have heard organizations like Operation Dignity, it doesn't seem like the city has any accountability procedures for those folks. So they're meant to go out and connect people to services, help people get what's called housing ready, as some folks on the call may know in order to get into available affordable housing, you have to have your driver's license or ID, your social security card. And there's other documents that I'm not thinking of. But those kinds of things are the things that get swept up and thrown out very easily and encampment, sweeps, but they're also documents that you need to have on hand and ready if you're going to be able to accept a housing match through any of these housing, you know, navigation systems. And there are contractors who are supposed to help people do that and they're failing to work competently with persons with disabilities. And so we've been thinking about litigation along those lines, both to get cities to hold those organizations accountable, but also hold the cities accountable for their kind of washing their hands of their obligations towards persons experiencing homelessness and persons with disabilities. 


Tina: This is Tina. I don't see any hands raised or questions in the Q&A box or chat. In the chat, there is an evaluation form link. We welcome your feedback on our webinar. We still have a few minutes left, so if anyone has questions. Jessica wrote in the chat, "Hopefully this isn't too much of a tangent, but are you familiar with what's going on with the lawsuit between LA County and Alliance for Human Rights? Judge Carter denied another settlement that seemed somewhat promising." 


Erin: Yeah, I think that was what you were referencing earlier, right, Emily? 


EmilyRose: That's correct, with the two disabled or two plaintiffs with disabilities who were suing because encampments they said were encroaching upon their ability to utilize sidewalks with wheelchairs. 


Erin: Yeah and so my understanding is that as part of the lawsuit and so the Alliance for Human Rights, just to clarify because it it sounds really nice, right? The Alliance for Human Rights and some of the things that they're demanding aren't necessarily bad, but it is a coalition of like businesses and I believe landlords as well as I think maybe some like activists and stuff, but they're seeking to get encampments cleared. But part of the demand too is that housing be built and space be provided I think in order to comply with Martin. And I believe the Judge Carter has denied the settlement multiple times because he feels that there is not enough accountability for LA and that there isn't enough housing provided and wants more oversight over that. And I think it's become controversial also because it's this settlement's been denied so many times and I think that there's been a lot of criticisms against the judge for that. And then Jessica, if you want, if you feel want to add anything to that as well, I mean I think in like another example where hopefully like a settlement can be, you know, used to build more housing to provide more for people who are unhoused. But yeah, if anyone wants to add to that.


EmilyRose: Yeah, I'll just add in case it isn't clear, the procedural posture of this case is peculiar because it was a coalition of, as Erin said, business owners and landlords who were suing the city saying clear encampments, we kind of don't care how but just get 'em out. And then there were interveners and the interveners are represented by folks who had achieved a settlement against this city and county of Los Angeles to that, that was implicated essentially by this lawsuit. And they're the folks that are advocating for all of the kind of needs of folks experiencing homelessness to be met in this battle between business owners and the city and county. And so it's an odd procedural posture, but the folks experiencing homelessness are represented in the case but by interveners and I forget the individuals who are representing them, but I've heard them speak and they're just, you know, brilliant, dedicated folks. 
Tina: We do have a question in the Q&A from Richard. "How would this impact with forced treatment with upcoming care court in my county Santa Cruz?" She's not having any affordable housing including supportive housing. 


Erin: Thank you, Richard. So one of the things under care court and just real quick brief description for anyone who's unaware CARE Court is sort of a new court process that was established recently that was recently passed that they'll soon be having pilot programs and then soon be implemented across the state where essentially a person with schizophrenia or a similar psychotic disorder can be forced into this court process where they have to adhere to a certain court plan and there's repercussions if you don't adhere to this plan. And it's just another form of force treatment. As Richard said, that a lot of the disability rights community has has come out against. So one of the things under the care court is that is hugely problematic that I think connects with this issue a lot is that only certain people can put someone through care court. So it could be like a family member or someone you live with, which might seem a little bit more obvious in this context, but it can also be a first responder and a police officer. So I think what we'll end up seeing is that as encampment sweeps are happening, as people are being cited, someone who's a first responder, someone who's a police officer who does not have the training to diagnose someone with schizophrenia, right, will see someone who is acting a certain way and could make referrals to care court under that. And it is care court with push as a means to solving homelessness in California too. So I think you'll see a lot of people being taken through the process of clearing encampments and put into care court. Obviously that's just speculation at this point. And it's interesting, right, because under Martin, and this could be potentially an interesting thing to litigate, it's not technically criminalizing someone 'cause it's not a criminal process and it's not a criminal penalty that they're going through. And the way a lot of people talk about it is it's a way to avoid that. So yes, that's how I see that impacting. EmilyRose, if you wanna add thing to that. 


EmilyRose: Yeah, I can't remember are there criminal, I thought there were criminal penalties at the end if you criminal penalties but also conservatorship as a possibility. 


Erin: Yeah. 


EmilyRose: At the end. Criminal penalties. But I think if there are then it gives a Johnson versus Grant's Pass problem, which is, you know, you can tie it up with a civil penalties bow but if the ultimate consequence is a criminal penalty, it is a Martin violation and I see. Are we at time? 


Tina: This is Tina, yes. To be respectful of our interpreter and captioner, this concludes the webinar. I've left the evaluation link one more time in the chat. And thank you everyone for attending today and thank you to our presenters. 


EmilyRose: Thank you so much everyone. 


Erin: Thank you.