The City of Seattle has been “too broad” in defining when it can clear homeless encampments, a King County Superior Court judge ruled. The ruling could have a big impact on how the homeless are treated. The judge ruled that part of the city’s approach to homeless encampments was “unconstitutional.”
The civil liberties organization has won another victory. John Midgley, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washingtonsaid, “We’re very happy that he’s made these decisions. Time will tell what changes may or may not be made or what else might happen.”
Onlookers interested in this issues know that the case could help to formalize what to do going forward about this issue. The case maybe outlining the protections and limitations that municipalities must follow when removing homeless encampments. In the case, Kitcheon v. City of Seattle, the plaintiffs said that their personal property was destroyed, not stored. A trial on additional aspects of the four-year long case is scheduled for September.
The ACLU of Washington filed the lawsuit in 2019 on behalf of mainly homeless people who had belongings taken during encampment clearings. The case also brought up the issue of prior notice as plaintiffs accused the city of not always doing what it was supposed to do in letting people know when the encampment was going to be raided.
“Obstruction” however, is the big issue of Seattle’s current public camping ban. This issue revolves around the city allowing staff to remove people from a site immediately without requiring notice beforehand. Tim Robinson, spokesperson for the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, said the city plans to appeal the judge’s decision. A key element of the case is how to define “an obstruction.” For example, are tents on sidewalks obstructions vs. tents in parks?
