Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawVoid for VaguenessDue ProcessFacial Challenge42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentvoid for vagueness

Facts

Los Angeles Municipal Code § 85.02 prohibited using a vehicle on city streets or certain public lots "as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise." After a 2010 town hall on homelessness, the LAPD created a Venice Homelessness Task Force to enforce the ordinance against homeless people using vehicles as "living quarters," with officers instructed to look for possessions such as food, bedding, clothing, medicine, and other necessities, and told that sleeping in the vehicle was not required. Plaintiffs were warned, cited, or arrested while engaged in conduct such as waiting in a parked car, talking on a cell phone, sitting in a car to avoid rain, driving an RV through Venice, or possessing food, clothing, bedding, medicine, and personal belongings. Internal LAPD memoranda and deposition testimony showed conflicting and vague enforcement guidance, including a disregarded 2008 memo and a broad "Four C's" approach that gave officers substantial discretion.

Issue

Whether Los Angeles Municipal Code § 85.02, which forbids use of a vehicle as living quarters "overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise," is facially unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it fails to provide fair notice and permits arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Also, whether the district court should have allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to raise that vagueness challenge.

Rule

Under the Due Process Clause, a statute is facially void for vagueness if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits. Vagueness invalidates a criminal law for either of two independent reasons: it fails to provide notice enabling ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited, or it authorizes and even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In assessing vagueness, courts may consider limiting constructions adopted by the enforcement agency, but those constructions matter only if they actually provide clarity and are followed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Phoenix adopts an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to use any parked vehicle on public streets as a "domestic space, temporarily or otherwise." The ordinance does not define "domestic space," and officers cite Nora Kim after finding her sitting in her hatchback during a rainstorm with groceries, a blanket, and a phone charger inside.

If Nora brings a facial due process challenge, what is the strongest argument that the ordinance is void for vagueness?

Explanation. A criminal law is facially vague if ordinary people cannot understand what conduct it prohibits. Here, undefined terms such as "domestic space" and "temporarily or otherwise" do not draw a clear line between innocent conduct and criminal conduct, forcing people to guess whether everyday acts—like sheltering from rain with personal belongings in a car—are prohibited. The majority opinion treated that lack of fair notice as independently sufficient for facial invalidity.