The U.S. Appeals Court ruled that a 1983 Los Angeles law "which prohibits the use of a vehicle as "living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise'" is unconstitutional.
The concern toward this statute, Section 85.02, arose because of the fact that the wording of the law is unclear and vague, making it difficult for individuals to understand the standards of this law, and also making it easy for officials to discriminate against homeless people and arrest them. The case text explains that the law "provides inadequate notice of the unlawful conduct it proscribes, and opens the door to discriminatory enforcement against the homeless and the poor."
The case itself was brought about because of four people who were arrested on the charge that they were breaking this law. These four people filed this claim because they had been targeted by police officers for various reasons.
One individual, Steven Jacobs-Elstein, was "waiting in his car on a public street for the First Baptist Church of Venice to open so that he could volunteer to serve at the food distribution program, and also receive a meal," according to the case text. However, police officers cited him for violating Section 85.02, and did not provide him with any alternative resources for shelter. Jacobs-Elstein was cited multiple times even when he was not actually sleeping inside his vehicle.
Patricia Warivonchik is another individual who was cited and arrested on the basis of breaking this ordinance. She had been legally parking her RV at a church in Santa Monica. However, in November 2010, she was pulled over by an officer while she was driving through Venice to take her artwork to a local fair. Initially she was pulled over for not turning off her left blinker, but she was cited for violating Section 85.02 instead.
"Is it impermissible to eat food in a vehicle? Is it illegal to keep a sleeping bag? Canned food? Books? What about speaking on a cell phone? Or staying in the car to get out of the rain?", the court asked, expressing the confusing standards of the ordinance.
With finality, the court decided, "The City of Los Angeles has many options at its disposal to alleviate the plight and suffering of its homeless citizens. Selectively preventing the homeless and the poor from using their vehicles for activities many other citizens also conduct in their cars should not be one of those options."
