In California, many cities have enacted several laws to discourage camping and homeless-related activities, but there are no laws that specifically bans or restricts homelessness. Prior to the Boise decision, like many cities, Manhattan Beach enforced its anti-camping laws and would encourage individuals experiencing homelessness to seek shelter elsewhere, but it was not a sufficient deterrent to stop all camping in public places. While being homeless is not a crime, the Manhattan Beach Police Department will take enforcement actions wherever it is appropriate. The City upholds its laws and ordinances with all residents, including the homeless. Below is some additional information regarding homelessness and the law.
Martin v. Boise
The Martin v. Boise case challenged the City of Boise’s (Idaho) enforcement of its Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances against persons experiencing homelessness—those who need to sleep in public in the absence of adequate housing or shelter. In 2018, a panel of the 9th Circuit held that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.” Following that ruling, the City of Boise petitioned the entire 9th Circuit to rehear the case (“en banc”), which was rejected. Boise then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and in 2019, the Court rejected that request, thereby affirming that within the 9th Circuit, “the Eighth Amendment preclude[s] the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter.” To read the full decision and see some FAQs, please click on the links below:
Martin v. Boise Decision
Anti-Camping Ordinance
To maintain public areas within the City in a clean, sanitary, safe and accessible condition, the Manhattan Beach City Council adopted an Ordinance on September 4, 2018, prohibiting camping and storing personal property in public areas. The City has taken the following measures to enforce the Ordinance in a manner that is in full compliance with the Constitution, while addressing homelessness in a deliberate and humane manner.
- Designation of homeless liaison that reports directly to the City Manager
- Outreach and education, including the formation of a homeless task force
- Coordination with regional homeless care services
- Proactive communication with area shelters to determine availability
- Assisting homeless individuals with finding adequate shelter
- Secure additional mental health clinician hours
If the City has arranged for adequate and available shelter, and an individual chooses not to use it, the City will enforce the new Ordinance.
In response to the Martin v. Boise decision, the City joined a coalition of California local public agencies in support of the City of Boise’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. However, on December 16, 2019, the Supreme Court announced that it would not review the Boise decision.
Johnson v. City of Grants Pass
Post Martin v. Boise, the Johnson v. City of Grants Pass case challenged the City of Grants Pass's (Oregon) enforcement of its anti-camping ordinance against persons experiencing homelessness—those who need to sleep in public in the absence of adequate housing or shelter. The City of Grants Pass' anti-camping ordinance relied on civil citations for enforcement before resorting to criminal sanctions and included verbiage banning individuals from using forms of protection from the elements, such as sleeping bags or other bedding materials. In 2022, a panel of the 9th Circuit held that “Imposing a few extra steps before criminalizing the very acts Martin explicitly says cannot be criminalized does not cure the anti-camping ordinances' Eighth Amendment infirmity.” The court further iterated, "Our decision reaches beyond Martin slightly" in that "the only plausible reading of Martin is that it applies to the act of 'sleeping' in public, including articles necessary to facilitate sleep." The right to protection against the elements is limited and does not include the use of stoves, fires, or the building of structures. To read the full decision and see some FAQs, please click on the links below:
Johnson v. City of Grants Pass Decision
Additionally, at the September 19, 2023, meeting City Council authorized the City Attorney to join in the support of an amicus brief along with various cities and associations in their writ action questioning the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property and their relation to the Eighth Amendment. See notable links below:
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
Previously Submitted Amicus Curiae Brief by California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities in Support of Defendant-Appellant’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc
Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPSA)
Many individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from inadequate mental health treatment. Over the ensuing decades, the laws regarding mental health treatment have changed and none were more significant than in 1967 when California passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPSA) which sought to, “end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders.” It also established a right to prompt psychiatric evaluation and treatment, and imposed specific timeframes on involuntary confinement and limited involuntary holds (typically no more than 72 hours) to those deemed a danger to themselves or others. This law effectively ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system. Click on the link below to read the entire LPSA.
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPSA)
For some time, the City of Manhattan Beach City Council has taken legislative positions to change the State’s government code to address mental health ailments. To see a list of the City Council’s positions see the City’s Legislative positions page.
Criminal Justice Reform and Homelessness
Beginning in 2014, California voters and the State legislature enacted a series of criminal justice reforms through AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57, which has placed limitations on law enforcement's ability to respond to increases in criminal activity. In summary:
- AB 109 transferred the responsibility of housing certain criminals from State prison to County jail facilities; however, local jail facilities were already full, which resulted in the early release of about 45,000 low-level criminals to relieve prison overcrowding.
- Prop 47 was approved by 60 percent of voters which changed crimes like shoplifting, theft, or forgery and possession of illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, from felony offenses to misdemeanor offenses.
- Prop 57 allowed the State authority to release up to 30,000 inmates from State prisons.
Furthermore, the Los Angeles County District Attorney Office issued new policy directives in December 2020. While the changes to State law and policy decisions to not prosecute offenses are being made at the County level, it has been and will continue to be the practice of the Manhattan Beach Police Department to enforce all laws in the City. This includes crimes committed by individuals like theft, assault, drug possession, and other offenses regardless of their dwelling status. Ongoing efforts to revise the City's prosecution abilities continued to be considered by the City Council.
If a crime has been committed in the City of Manhattan Beach, regardless of whether the District Attorney’s Office chooses to prosecute, the individual will be cited and/or arrested by the Manhattan Beach Police Department.
