Sit-Lie Laws

Available under Creative Commons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

One modern statutory approach to preventing homeless individuals and transients from congregating in cities and affecting the quality of life or the prosperity of businesses and tourism are sit-lie laws. Sit-lie laws prohibit sitting or lying on public streets and sidewalks and thereby encourage individuals to move about, rather than block access to businesses, roadways, or transportation facilities. If precisely drafted, sit-lie laws could resemble constitutional loitering statutes, substituting sitting or lying down for the criminal act of loitering, wandering, or remaining. However, these statutes are susceptible to the same constitutional challenges as vagrancy and loitering statutes because they target the impoverished, addicts, and the unemployed.

Seattle was the first city in the United States to enact a sit-lie ordinance in 1993 that prohibited sitting or lying on a public sidewalk between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. in Seattle’s downtown area. The ordinance was attacked and ultimately upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1996. 1 Los Angeles thereafter enacted a more comprehensive ordinance that banned sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks at all times and in all places within Los Angeles city limits. This ordinance was stricken by the same court as unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the Eighth Amendment.   2 The court held that the homeless in Los Angeles far outnumbered the amount of space available in homeless shelters, and therefore the ordinance punished defendants for conduct that was involuntary. Portland followed Los Angeles with a sidewalk-obstruction ordinance, requiring individuals to keep their personal belongings within two feet of their bodies. This ordinance was stricken as void for vagueness in 2009. 3

The most recent enactment of a sit-lie ordinance took place in San Francisco in 2010. The San Francisco ordinance is modeled after the Seattle ordinance and prohibits sitting or lying on a public sidewalk in the city limits between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., with exceptions for medical emergencies, protests, or those who have disabilities.   4 The first offense is an infraction, and the second offense is a misdemeanor. 5 If the San Francisco ordinance successfully reduces the presence of transients and is upheld as constitutional, other cities that desire the same results could soon follow suit.

Figure 12.3  Potential Constitutional Challenges to Loitering, Panhandling, and Sit-Lie Law

 

Table 12.1 Comparing Disorderly Conduct, Loitering, and Sit-Lie Laws

Crime	Criminal Act	Criminal Intent	Attendant Circumstance
Disorderly conduct	Unreasonable noise, obscene utterance or gesture, fighting, threats, fighting words, creating a hazardous condition	Specific or purposely or recklessly to disturb the public or create a risk thereof	Act takes place in public
Loitering	Loitering, wandering, remaining	Specific or purposely to beg, gamble, solicit prostitution	Act takes place near a school, transportation facility: the defendant is masked
Sit-lie law	Sitting or lying down	Strict liability*	Act takes place between certain times of day, in public, on a sidewalk, or on a street
*Exceptionsfor medicalemergencies,people whohavedisabilities,protests

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The criminal act element required for disorderly conduct is either when the defendant (1) makes a loud and unreasonable noise, obscene utterance, or gesture, (2) engages in fighting or threatening, or states fighting words, or (3) creates a hazardous condition by an act that does not serve a legitimate purpose.
• The criminal intent element required for disorderly conduct in many jurisdictions is the specific intent or purposely to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or the reckless intent to cause a risk thereof.
• The disorderly conduct attendant circumstance is that the conduct occurs in a public place.
• Disorderly conduct statutes can be constitutionally challenged under the First or Fourteenth Amendments as void for vagueness or overbroad.
• Disorderly conduct is typically graded as a misdemeanor.
• Vagrancy statutes are subject to constitutional challenges if they are void for vagueness, overbroad, or target status.
• Loitering statutes are subject to constitutional challenges if they target the unemployed or are void for vagueness.
• The loitering criminal act element is typically loitering, wandering, or remaining, with the specific intent or purposely to gamble, beg, or engage in prostitution. An attendant circumstance could specify the location the conduct takes place, such as a school or transportation facility. Another common attendant circumstance is being masked in a public place while loitering, with an exception for defendants going to a masquerade party or participating in a public parade. Loitering is typically graded as a misdemeanour or a violation.
• Sit-lie laws typically prohibit sitting or lying on a public sidewalk or street, instead of loitering, wandering, or remaining like loitering statutes.

Exercises

Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.

1. A city enacts an ordinance that prohibits standing or remaining in a crosswalk for an extended period with a sign. What are three potential constitutional challenges to this ordinance? Can you identify a government interest supporting it?
2. Read Statev. Russell, 890 A.2d 453 (2006). Why did the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reinstate a complaint against the defendant for disorderly conduct in this case? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15220603438033851670&q=State+v+Russell&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5.
3. Read Peoplev. Hoffstead, 905 N.Y.S.2d 736 (2010). Why did the New York Supreme Court overturn the defendant’s conviction for loitering in this case? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16147172189959232373&q=People+v.+Hoffstead&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5.