ADVERTISEMENT

SIAP SCOTUS looking at penalizing homeless

If I get the time to find it, I'll post my decision about being homeless not being a crime. Probably one of my prouder moments
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR _____________ COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF IOWA, case number
Plaintiff,
v. RULING
______________________,
Defendant

Trial commenced on _________. _________appeared on behalf of the State of Iowa and _________ appeared on behalf of the Defendant, ___________. _____ was charged with Interference with Official Acts and Trespassing, 1st offense.
Findings of Fact:

On Sep_____________, law enforcement responded to a call that an individual may be in/around the _________ auto dealership. When law enforcement responded to the call, they found Defendant, _______ sleeping by a trailer near an out building behind the car dealership. Law enforcement attempted to identify the defendant. After Mr. ______was fully able to be alert as to his surroundings, he eventually identified himself with his full name. Law enforcement “ran” __________ name through dispatch to verify whether there were any outstanding warrants, or if there was any criminal history. Dispatch reported to law enforcement that there were no warrants and no indications of criminal history.

At this point law enforcement asked for Mr. ____ date of birth (DOB) and social security number (SSN). Mr. ____ refused due his understanding that he had an obligation to identify himself, which he already done. Mr. ____ believed he was being harassed due to the fact that he had already identified himself, and he reported a history of being questioned by law enforcement. (The court notes that Mr. ____ is homeless or as he prefers to say “he lives outside”, and he rests where he can find a peaceful place to sleep at night unbothered). Due to fact that he often sleeps out in public, he is often questioned.

The facts are clear that at no point did law enforcement ask Mr. _____ to leave the premises at __________. Mr. _____testified that if law enforcement had simply asked him to leave that site he would have done so. There is no evidence that any employees with ___________ asked Mr. _______ to leave the premises. There were no signs at the location that stated “no trespassing”. Mr. _______ had never previously been asked not to come to this location. In fact, Mr. ______ testified that this was his first night in the city of _______ There is no evidence that Mr. ____ came upon the premises with the intent to commit a crime. There is no evidence that Mr. _____ damaged or removed anything on the property. Simply put, there is no evidence of criminal intent by the Defendant.

Mr. ____identified himself as he was obliged to. He did not give a false or misleading name. He did not lie to law enforcement. He did not run from the police. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. ____ physically resisted law enforcement. Law enforcement did not inform the Defendant that he was under arrest until he was already placed in the police car. Law enforcement testified that it was only a couple of minutes between the time of the request for SSN and DOB and the placement of Mr. ____ in the police car.
If law enforcement had asked Mr. _____to leave the location and he refused to leave, the Court would have found Mr. _____ guilty of both offenses. However, that is not the factual scenario presented to the court.

Ruling:
Without getting into a commentary on how this matter was handled, the Court finds that the State has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the elements of the offenses charged. The Defendant is acquitted of Interference with Official Acts and Tresspassing,1st Offense. Costs are assessed to the Plaintiff.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR _____________ COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF IOWA, case number
Plaintiff,
v. RULING
______________________,
Defendant

Trial commenced on _________. _________appeared on behalf of the State of Iowa and _________ appeared on behalf of the Defendant, ___________. _____ was charged with Interference with Official Acts and Trespassing, 1st offense.
Findings of Fact:

On Sep_____________, law enforcement responded to a call that an individual may be in/around the _________ auto dealership. When law enforcement responded to the call, they found Defendant, _______ sleeping by a trailer near an out building behind the car dealership. Law enforcement attempted to identify the defendant. After Mr. ______was fully able to be alert as to his surroundings, he eventually identified himself with his full name. Law enforcement “ran” __________ name through dispatch to verify whether there were any outstanding warrants, or if there was any criminal history. Dispatch reported to law enforcement that there were no warrants and no indications of criminal history.

At this point law enforcement asked for Mr. ____ date of birth (DOB) and social security number (SSN). Mr. ____ refused due his understanding that he had an obligation to identify himself, which he already done. Mr. ____ believed he was being harassed due to the fact that he had already identified himself, and he reported a history of being questioned by law enforcement. (The court notes that Mr. ____ is homeless or as he prefers to say “he lives outside”, and he rests where he can find a peaceful place to sleep at night unbothered). Due to fact that he often sleeps out in public, he is often questioned.

The facts are clear that at no point did law enforcement ask Mr. _____ to leave the premises at __________. Mr. _____testified that if law enforcement had simply asked him to leave that site he would have done so. There is no evidence that any employees with ___________ asked Mr. _______ to leave the premises. There were no signs at the location that stated “no trespassing”. Mr. _______ had never previously been asked not to come to this location. In fact, Mr. ______ testified that this was his first night in the city of _______ There is no evidence that Mr. ____ came upon the premises with the intent to commit a crime. There is no evidence that Mr. _____ damaged or removed anything on the property. Simply put, there is no evidence of criminal intent by the Defendant.

Mr. ____identified himself as he was obliged to. He did not give a false or misleading name. He did not lie to law enforcement. He did not run from the police. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. ____ physically resisted law enforcement. Law enforcement did not inform the Defendant that he was under arrest until he was already placed in the police car. Law enforcement testified that it was only a couple of minutes between the time of the request for SSN and DOB and the placement of Mr. ____ in the police car.
If law enforcement had asked Mr. _____to leave the location and he refused to leave, the Court would have found Mr. _____ guilty of both offenses. However, that is not the factual scenario presented to the court.

Ruling:
Without getting into a commentary on how this matter was handled, the Court finds that the State has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the elements of the offenses charged. The Defendant is acquitted of Interference with Official Acts and Tresspassing,1st Offense. Costs are assessed to the Plaintiff.
Well done. Concise and persuasive.
 
I think there needs to be a bipartisan bill to develop more mental health facilities, rehab treatment centers, develop better and more housing in crowded cities and states, and maybe even more warming shelters and soup kitchens.

I think if both sides of congress came together about 60 Billion can help this crisis. What do you guys think?
 
In America, yes. If you have no money or are homeless, America wants to make things worse for you. It's kinda the point of the thread.
You just shifted the goalpost. You didn't answer the question. Huey, were you personally born rich? If not, does that make you a loser.

The point of the thread is the oral argument of the SCOTUS hearing, and someone's bizarre interpretation of that session. I read the transcript last night. Not one justice favored treating homeless people as criminals because they are homeless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millah_22
Were you born rich? If not, does that make you a loser?
hall of fame game missed the point GIF
 
You just shifted the goalpost. You didn't answer the question. Huey, were you personally born rich? If not, does that make you a loser.

The point of the thread is the oral argument of the SCOTUS hearing, and someone's bizarre interpretation of that session. I read the transcript last night. Not one justice favored treating homeless people as criminals because they are homeless.
Your post makes no sense. These homeless people are poor. And merely being poor is being criminalized against them. If that's not treating them as losers, then I don't know what is?
 
You can build all the shelters that you want... there's a good segment of this population that will refuse them or any other "assistance" beyond giving them some food, money and toiletries.

That said, I do agree that decades of closing mental facilities, lack of shelters, and rampant drug and alcohol abuse in this country have gotten us to this position. Those three things need to be addressed to see the large numbers on the streets decrease.
 
The world needs a good plague. And I say that in the emotionally coldest, most economic hard truths way.
Obviously there is a lot of work to do on the homeless front, but we need figure out a way to get median housing to not cost such large percentages of median household incomes. Otherwise it's just going to keep getting worse.

Proactive, not reactive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParkerHawk
Your post makes no sense. These homeless people are poor. And merely being poor is being criminalized against them. If that's not treating them as losers, then I don't know what is?
I've been poor, and in today's terms, homeless.

Being poor is not being criminalized against the poor, and the SCOTUS surely didn't go down that road yesterday. In fact it was just the opposite.

Were you born poor? If so, does that make you a loser? I'm asking that question of you personally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Obviously there is a lot of work to do on the homeless front, but we need figure out a way to get median housing to not cost such large percentages of median household incomes. Otherwise it's just going to keep getting worse.

Proactive, not reactive.

My plague comment is actually well beyond the homeless...because I completely agree with you it's going to keep getting worse. IMHO we're heading towards a humanitarian crisis due to greed, technological advances like AI (and the downstream employment impacts), the wealth gap, resource scarcity, climate change, etc. I don't know how many generations it is away (probably a few) - but there's too many of us on the planet to keep things status quo. We're headed towards a zero sum game where the winners won't be able to control the losers due to pure #'s. A good old fashioned black plague or a world war to cut the global population in 1/2 and reset some perspectives is the easiest fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifler
I've been poor, and in today's terms, homeless.

Being poor is not being criminalized against the poor, and the SCOTUS surely didn't go down that road yesterday. In fact it was just the opposite.

Were you born poor? If so, does that make you a loser? I'm asking that question of you personally?
So you're arguing that SCOTUS will shoot down these criminal homeless laws?
 
It is a problem. But it's also not unreasonable to have a small town like Grant's Pass want to kick them out of the city park when they show up en masse.
Right, and telling campers to move along is not the issue. The issue is fining them $295 or arresting them for the offenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
When I worked for a Parks & Rec department they would post a notice, usually 72 hours, but they really only legally had to give 24.

Then those that stayed or left crap behind would have it removed via bulldozer and dump truck.
That could be a lever to use.

There probably needs to be some sort of stipulation that the city has some sort of public shelter option congruent with the city size if they want to be able to arrest/forcefully remove people.

In general small cities would get more leeway because they're just not going to be setup to deal with a big influx of people.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT