OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — An attorney for a group of homeless individuals living in RVs on 8th and Harrison streets in Berkeley argued in a motion to dismiss hearing on Thursday afternoon that the city unlawfully seized and destroyed her clients’ vehicles during abatement procedures.
Berkeley’s attorney, Marc Shapp, argued the plaintiffs had failed to state a viable Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Shapp said the tents and RVs sat on sidewalks and obstructed the public’s right of way, and that it is illegal to have structures like tents or RVs on sidewalks — regardless of if the person occupying them is disabled.
Melissa Riess, counsel for the plaintiffs, said her clients are protected by precedent set in the 2018 Ninth Circuit case Martin v. Boise, which held local governments cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if there is not enough shelter beds for the homeless.
She took particular issue with Berkeley’s ban on parking for longer than 72 hours, an ordinance that she said unfairly targets disabled people. She said seizing an RV that someone is living in is “unlawful.”
“In general, the enforcement of municipal code provisions like this claim is not done in a way which accommodates their disabilities,” Riess said. She said that moving every three days presents a special hardship to disabled people.
The city has offered campers shelter at motels and other locations in the past, but Riess said the shelter comes with draconian rules and is often not ADA compliant.
Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen asked Riess why anyone would need to park in one spot for more than 72 hours.
“A number of our clients live in RVs because they have nowhere else to go. It would be more unsafe for them, and would be triggering to their mental health disabilities,” Riess replied. “And for some individuals it would also be just physically very difficult for them to live in a tent, for example,” Riess said.
Shapp called Riess’ argument “generic,” and said the plaintiffs never tied their disabilities to the need to keep an RV in their complaint.
Chen replied that he would need to recheck the complaint to see if the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that distinction.
Shapp explained that for people living in RVs “there has to be a specific connection between the claim of disability, the impairment that they claim to have, and this accommodation. And even there, the fact that there is no allegation that they have requested and been denied some other reasonable accommodation is basically fatal to the ADA claim.”
Chen asked Shapp what the specific harm is of having people living in RVs in the area.
The vehicles are not street legal, Shapp replied, because they don’t run and the ones that do run are not smog checked. He said they often accumulate trash, triggering the city’s community caretaker exception, which allows the city to impound or move vehicles that are in the public right of way or are a fire hazard. Shapp said a lack of money for a person to make the vehicle street legal is not cognizable under the ADA.
“A stationary RV is not just occupying the two or three parking spaces where it’s parked, but it is essentially an anchor point for a much larger problem that includes encroachment onto the sidewalk,” Shapp said.
Chen asked Shapp if the city could just cite those people who encroach the sidewalk while leaving others alone, and asked him what authority the city had to destroy or impound someone’s vehicle.
“If something’s actually a nuisance then you go in and abate the nuisance. But if somebody’s, let’s say, not a nuisance and keeping off the sidewalk, what’s the city’s interest in health and safety and traffic flow at that point?” Chen asked.
Shapp replied that the violation of state vehicle codes was enough of a justification, and that he doesn’t believe anyone’s vehicle has been crushed by the city. Riess immediately disputed Shapp’s account, noting the complaint mentions RVs being impounded and destroyed.
Chen took the matter under submission.
The fight over RVs is the latest saga in the legal battle over the camp at 8th and Harrison. Chen halted a sweep of the camp in September after residents filed a temporary restraining order against the city. He eventually lifted the restraining order after the city agreed to work with residents to keep their property safe while the camp was cleaned up.
In December, a different federal judge granted a temporary restraining order after two disabled residents at the camp sued after the city said it intended to tear the camp down. Later that month, Chen said Berkeley could shut down the camp after it supplied the two residents with ADA-compliant shelter.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Texas challenges Title IX protections for LGBT students April 29, 2024