court – Homeless Law Blog

March 27, 2008April 13, 2015

Is naked always obscene? What is illegal about being naked when changing clothes or bathing in outdoor public spaces?

**** The information written here is not legal advice and the author of this blog is not your lawyer. These posts merely contain ideas to help you plan and organize your legal research and identify potentially helpful sources of law. ****

The words obscene and obscenity generally refer to printed or electronically published materials, rather than a person’s actions. Exposure of private body parts in person is more likely to be called “public nudity” or “open lewdness” in the law.[i] No matter what it is called, being naked, or at least having genitalia uncovered, is almost always illegal when you are in a place where people would not expect to come upon the sight of someone’s private parts.[ii] This is why people wearing skimpy bathing suits on the beach don’t get in trouble, but people bathing in a park or changing clothes in an alleyway do.

Often, it is a combination of unexpected exposure along with the possibility of offending or exciting an onlooker’s sexual sensibilities that makes public nudity illegal. Indiana courts have declared for decades that their anti-nudity statute was written for the purpose of “protecting the unsuspecting and non-consenting viewer from another’s exposure.”[iii] The Michigan Court of Appeals recently stated that “the purposes of the indecent exposure statute are best fulfilled by focusing on the impact that offensive conduct might have.”[iv]

Statutes, themselves, do not always convey that onlookers have to be surprised or offended and they don’t necessarily tell what degree of nudity is illegal. Some locales have highly specific anti-nudity statutes telling exactly how much exposure is too much and others have broad statutes, leaving more interpretation up to police discretion.

Sample laws: In Cotati, California, the municipal code says that “It is unlawful for any person over the age of ten years to willfully expose his person…in such a manner that the genitals, vulva, pubis, pubic symphysis, public hair, buttocks, natal cleft, perineum, anus, anal region or pubic hair region is exposed to public view.”[v]

In Independence, Missouri, the indecent exposure ordinance considers it a criminal act when anyone, “knowingly exposes his/her genitals or buttocks or a female exposes her breasts or is clothed in such a manner under circumstances in which he/she knows he/she will reasonably cause alarm or embarrassment to other persons.”[vi]

The Code in Grand Rapids, Minnesota simply says, “No person shall appear in any street, park or public place of the city in a state of nudity, in any indecent or lewd dress, or make any indecent or lewd exposure of his person.”[vii]

Charleston, South Carolina has a similarly broad standard, “No person shall appear in any public place or on property open to the public in a state of nudity or otherwise make any indecent exposure of his or her person.”[viii]

The Code of Federal Regulations, regulating behavior in national parks, is more general in its description of what it calls disorderly conduct: “A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public alarm, nuisance…knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof…engages in a display or act that is obscene.”[ix]

Defendants charged with violating the federal regulation at least have the opportunity to assert that they didn’t intend to cause a public alarm or didn’t know they were creating a risk of alarm or nuisance. And, since the federal regulation does not specify whether nudity alone or behavior combined with nudity might be an obscene “display or act,” there is also flexibility in defending the exposure itself.

The more specific local ordinances are harder to fight in court than the general language of the federal regulation, but those local ordinances come with less of a penalty, usually a ticket.[x] In other words, if the law says, “you can’t expose this part of your body” and a police officer has seen you expose it, then there just is not much flexible interpretation available for a defense.

Sometimes, when the police realize that they are dealing with somebody who cannot pay the fine and does not have a place to get cleaned up, they will transport the accused person to a shelter or some other place where the function that was being done in public can be done in private. That way, the people complaining to the police about having encountered someone naked or partly undressed will see that the police are responding to them and the homeless person gets to do what he needs to do without having court interaction.

This type of police action might not be specified in any legal codes, but that does not make it illegal. Law enforcement officers have broad duties to protect the public and maintain peace and order. So, transporting folks to places where they can wash or get changed or sleep is something that police can do, even though it is neither something they are prohibited from doing nor something that they are required to do.

[i] When researching case law about public nudity in any books by the Thomson West publishing company, which publishes the majority of case reporters, you will find it categorized as “obscenity key 3” and “obscenity key 5”.

[ii] 67 C.J.S. Obscenity § 9 (2005).

[iii] Townsend v. State, 750 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

[iv] People v. Huffman, 702 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).

[v] Cotai, CA., Municipal Code § 9.33.020 (2005).

[vi] Independence, MN., Code of Ordinances § 12.06.006 (2005).

[vii] Grand Rapids, MN., City Code § 42.102 (2005).

[viii] Charleston, SC., City Code § 21.166 (2005).

[ix] 36 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(2) (2007).

[x] See the blog posts about dealing with police and the courts to find out about responding to tickets when you cannot pay the fines.

March 26, 2008April 5, 2011

What kinds of legal research sources are jails and prisons required to provide?

The U.S. Constitution has been understood to say that because people are entitled to represent themselves in criminal court[i] and to have due process in their interactions with the government[ii] they are entitled to legal information sources with which to represent themselves when they are incarcerated.[iii] The cases explaining why inmates should have access to legal resources do not specify exactly what kinds of resources have to be available. They say that inmates should have “tools” that enable them “to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement.”[iv]

While law library access is one helpful tool, the courts more broadly require that somehow the prisons and jails confer “the capability of bringing contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.”[v] When inmates who could not read and did not know English sued a prison for not providing them with this capability, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a library full of standard English language law books would not make them capable of fighting their convictions or anything about their incarceration.[vi]

[i] Cases have stated that the Sixth Amendment, providing for a right to counsel, also provides criminal defendants with the choice of representing themselves. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 95 S.Ct 2525 (1975). An article showing how this principle has been followed throughout the country is John Herbrand, Accused’s Right to Represent Himself in State Criminal Proceedings, 98 ALR 3d. 13 (1980- updated through 2006).

[ii] Cruz v. Beto 405 U.S. 319 (1972) (about prisoners’ rights to file grievances about prohibitions against their religious practices in prison); Johnson v. Avery 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (about prisoners’ rights to get assistance with legal document preparation from other inmates); Buchalter v. NY, 319 U.S. 427 (1943). (“action by a state through any of its agencies must be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions, which not infrequently are designated as the ‘law of the land.’ Where this requirement has been disregarded in a criminal trial in a state court this court has not hesitated to exercise its jurisdiction to enforce the constitutional guarantee.”)

[iii] Cases declaring that jailed criminal defendants have access to law libraries in jail include Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491 (1977) and Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct 2174 (1996). See also William Lindsley, Penal and Correctional Institutions, 60 Am. Jur. 2d §68 (updated through 2007). Section 68 is about “inmates’ access to courts, legal assistance, and materials.”

[iv] Lewis v. Casey at 518 U.S. 355 and 116 S.Ct. 2182.

[v] Id. at 356, 2182.

[vi] Id.

March 26, 2008May 16, 2008

Where can you go to conduct legal research?

The general answer to this question is, go to the nearest law library. The most likely law library to be accessible to the public is a county law library, but those are usually only located in the county seat. Some law schools allow the public to use their libraries for independent legal research. But because their purpose is to assist faculty and students with serious scholarly research, rather than to help the public with practical case research, they do not always have the kinds of resources that public patrons would want.

Public libraries often have basic state laws as well as small collections of books that are written for non-lawyers to use in handling legal transactions and court cases. If going to the library is impossible, inquire about getting internet access at community centers or social service agencies. We have leads many good internet sources throughout this blog because we anticipate that accessing those is likely to be more convenient than getting access to a thorough collection of law books.

March 26, 2008January 18, 2015

If you can’t get out on bail and are later proved innocent, can you get paid back for the time you spent in jail?

When a judge makes a bail decision, he is obligated only to use his best discretion in deciding whether the defendant should be released. He has to rely on the prosecutor and defense attorney to be thorough and accurate. It is very hard for individuals representing themselves to collect proof of tasks that the judge and lawyers might have failed to do. Still, there is research material that a person who was wrongly jailed and wrongly denied bail might want to investigate.

Clearly, a person in jail awaiting trial can suffer losses of money and experience. He might lose pay for missing work or he might lose the job altogether. If he lived in a public place or even in a shelter, he might have lost all of his possessions during the time that he was in jail and unavailable to watch his stuff. If he missed making payments on something because of being in jail, the item might have been repossessed.

He could miss a job interview or someone’s birthday or some other important event. He might have gotten housing if he’d been at a meeting that he couldn’t attend because he was held in jail, waiting for a trial. These losses might not have as much significance if that person is found guilty at his trial and has to spend a long time in prison anyway. But, if the person is found to be innocent, then the justice system has cost him truly unnecessary losses.

Only after the trial is that person in a position to have full proof of his losses because only then, when a court of law has held that he was innocent of the crime he was charged with, can he definitely state that had it not been for the bail denial, he would have been able to continue that job, get into that housing, save his possessions, etc… So, it is in an entirely separate case from his criminal trial that he would seek to make a claim for financial damages.[i] And, like all claims for money damages, the case would be in civil court, rather than criminal court.

There is not a body of legal literature about cases in which innocent people who were denied bail successfully sued the court for damages. This does not mean that there have never been any successful claims like this, but closest body of law is about cases in which people were wrongly convicted and later found innocent.[ii] Nevertheless, here is how a claim might play out:

Being a civil case involving an individual against a government entity, i.e. the court that denied bail, this claim for damages arising from unnecessary jailing would be based on constitutional rights. Likely claims would be violations of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to life, liberty, and due process.[iii] It has been said that, “In convicting an individual of a crime, the government reaches out to deprive him of life, liberty, or property by execution, jail, or fine.”[iv]

Years ago, a Lawyer-in-Chief of the Office of Professional Responsibility at the U.S. Dep’t. of Justice declared that “There is no other department [of government] that is viewed with comparable terror or fear, because there is no other department that by itself can put you in jail or take your life, liberty or property away from you.”[v] And, a court deciding a case in which a lawyer did not seek pretrial release for two indigent clients firmly stated that, “Any form of pretrial incarceration infringes on an accused’s liberty interest in a powerful and obvious manner.”[vi]

Some people present their due process claim along with a claim that the court violated rules about bail or release on recognizance.[vii] For this research, the innocent person, denied bail, would find the state or local rule of criminal procedure delineating how bail decisions are to be made and would show how that procedure was not properly applied in his case. Then, this unnecessarily jailed claimant would read Title 42 of the U.S. Code §1983[viii] which is about money damages for civil rights violations, and decide whether to include that kind of claim in the case.

NOTE: If you are in jail and are representing yourself in court, you might like The Jailhouse Lawyer’s Handbook published by the National Lawyers Guild.

[i] Notice that this question and answer are only about financial damages. It is definitely possible to appeal a bail decision in the criminal court system. The procedure for appealing a bail decision is established in criminal court rules. Those rules, and possibly forms to use for the appeal, are likely to be published in the local and state statutes, in individual books titled “(Name of State) Rules of Court”, and in attorney practice manuals for that jurisdiction. The clerk of the criminal court might even have an appeal packet available upon request.

[ii] See the National Registry of Exonerations to read about people who were eventually freed after being wrongly convicted of crimes. For a comparison of cases from throughout the country, See Annotation, Application of State Statute Providing Compensation for Wrongful Conviction and Incarceration, 34 ALR 4^th 648 (1984 updated through 2006). In addition to “wrongful conviction,” a related research term for locating law on this topic is “false imprisonment.”

[iii] U.S. CONST. Amend. V, XIV. “No person shall ….be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

[iv] David. P. Currie, Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights, 53 U. Chi. L.Rev. 864, 874 (1986).

[v] Elkin Abramowitz and Peter Scher, The Hyde Amendment: Congress Creates a Toehold for Wrongful Prosecution, 22 Champion 22 (1998). Available at http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/98mar04.htm quoting from the book MAIN JUSTICE by Jim McGee and Brian Duffy.

[vi] Matter of Rosen, 470 A.2d. 292 (D.C. 1983).

[vii] The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/. State Rules of Criminal Procedure are at http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes2.html#criminal_procedure. Note, however, that a criminal statute might say that bail or other pre-trial release is impossible in connection with a particular crime.

[viii] 42. U.S.C. §1983.

March 26, 2008December 29, 2020

Is it possible to get out on bail if you have no money?

The purpose of bail is to ensure that defendants will return to court for trial after having been formally accused of a crime at a preliminary hearing. The bail agreement between a court and a defendant establishes a defendant’s promise to pay the court a high amount of money which will then be returned to the defendant when he returns for the hearing.

A better assurance that the defendant will be present for trial is to simply keep him in jail, but that contradicts the notion that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.[i] In many states, money does not have to be posted; defendants can be released until trial “on their own recognizance.”[ii] Even in those jurisdictions though, if the court believes either that the defendant is likely to not return for trial or to pose a threat to the public, bail may be imposed to remind the defendant to behave and return for trial or else risk staying in jail until the trial.[iii]

For a someone who is homeless, the reasons for denying bail, such as: no money to put down as a guarantee, no community roots like a job or house, and no way to track him down are the same issues that can be argued in favor of releasing him on his own recognizance. The fact that a homeless defendant has no money with which to post bail also means that the defendant does not have money to pay for transportation out of the jurisdiction. Not having the responsibilities of a job or house would seem to leave a defendant flexible enough to abscond, but if the defendant has already been living in the jurisdiction without those roots, there is reason to believe that he has no place else to go. Similarly, the lack of an address and the defendant’s status as homeless provide even more routes by which to track him down than anyone who does have a permanent address because people who are homeless tend to be out in public areas and to repeatedly access particular social services sites.

[i] The presumption of innocence is described and analyzed very thoroughly in 1 Wayne R. LeFave, et al., Criminal Procedure, §1.4 part (d) “Accusatorial Burdens” (2d. Ed. Current through 2006 update.) In support of their analysis, the authors of that authoritative treatise cite to the following U.S. Supreme Court cases: Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-26, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1341-2 (1958); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 1930 (1978); Bell v. Wofish, 441 U.S. 20, 533, 99 S.Ct 1861, 1871 (1979), and Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 54, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 1350 (1949). For a detailed explanation of the constitutional right to be released on bail, see 8 CJS Bail §20. (CJS is Corpus Juris Secundum, a legal encyclopedia.)

[ii] Lynn C. Cobb, Annotation, Application of State Statutes Establishing Pretrial Release of Accused on Personal Recognizance as Presumptive Form of Release, 78 A.L.R.3d 780 (1977).

[iii] 1 Wayne R. LeFave, et al., Criminal Procedure, §1.4 Part (f) “Minimizing the Burdens of Accusation and Litigation” (2d. Ed. Current through 2006 update.); Lynn C. Cobb, Annotation, Application of State Statutes Establishing Pretrial Release of Accused on Personal Recognizance as Presumptive Form of Release, 78 A.L.R.3d 780, § 2(a) (1977).

March 25, 2008May 30, 2012

If the police come looking for you, does a shelter have to turn you over to them?

A place of shelter is not a place of asylum from the law. On the other hand, it is also not a place where the homeless should feel at risk of being rounded-up by the police. Unless someone commits a crime in a shelter or the police come to the shelter looking for a particular person, shelter staff have no legal obligation to identify residents to police.

If the police come to question a resident as a potential witness or perpetrator, someone who prevents the officers from having access to that resident can be charged with obstruction of justice or obstruction of process.[i]

There is a whole spectrum of interactions that might occur between shelter staff and police who come looking for a resident. At one end of the spectrum are the police with a warrant to search or seize. They might be there to seize a person or evidence. If they come to seize a person, the warrant is an arrest warrant.

As explained elsewhere in this blog, judges issue search and seizure warrants when police and prosecutors have given them probable cause to believe that evidence of a particular crime is located in the place to be searched.[ii] When the shelter-police interaction is at this end of the spectrum, the shelter has no choice but to comply with the police. Staff who interfere with the officers’ carrying out the warrant are blatantly obstructing justice. They might be handcuffed and immediately arrested so they can’t continue to impede the police work.

At the other end of the spectrum is a scene in which police have heard a vague complaint about a minor offense and come to the shelter asking the staff to present all of the male residents ages twenty to forty who have blue jeans. Here the police have not conveyed that a crime has occurred or that they even know who they are looking for. They are putting the staff in the dubious position of disrupting multiple innocent residents who came into the shelter only seeking a safe indoor place to rest.

At that point, the police might be causing the serious interference-interference with the fundamental purpose of the shelter. The shelter staff have to do their jobs and provide the residents with a place to rest. It would probably not be an obstruction of justice if they asked the police for more information so that fewer residents were interrupted or if they encouraged the police to come back and look for their suspect outside the building the next morning when the residents left for the day.

In between these two poles of the spectrum are numerous possibilities. Maybe a victim or a witness saw an attacker run into the shelter. Maybe the police have been following a shelter resident as part of a major investigation. Maybe the homeless have been crime targets and the police want to get to know them and help them avoid being victims. The decision about whether to charge shelter staff with obstruction will depend on the police officers’ assessment of the public safety risk involved if they are hindered from getting to a shelter resident, i.e. it depends on police discretion.[iii]

There are other potential criminal charges, aside from obstruction crimes, that shelter staff can face for not identifying residents to the police. They might, for example, be harboring a fugitive. Getting between the police and a shelter resident they’ve come to arrest could be harboring a fugitive.[iv] Even when counselors at a shelter have confidential knowledge of residents’ crimes, it does not mean that those counselors can hide those clients when the police come looking for them. They might be able to avoid disclosing clients’ counseling records for evidence, but they cannot keep the police away from those clients.[v]

Shelter staff can also have criminal liability for not identifying a resident when they know the resident is repeatedly committing a crime. The first time a shelter worker sees a resident stealing from other residents or dealing drugs in the shelter, he has a basic citizen’s obligation to report the crime to the police. If he doesn’t report the crime that first time, he’s not likely to be charged with a crime himself. (Although he should serve as a witness for the prosecution since he saw the illegal act.)

After the first time however, accomplice or conspiracy charges might be brought against the shelter worker who knows about a pattern of criminal behavior in the shelter but doesn’t report it to the police. Basically, an accomplice is someone who “gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent”[vi] a crime. A conspirator joins with others “for the purpose of committing…some unlawful or criminal act.”[vii]

[i] Obstruction of justice or process is defined and examined in 67 C.J.S. Obstructing Justice § 24 (2002). In the federal system, the statute against obstruction of justice/process is published in 18 USC §§ 1501-20 (2007). If local or state police are obstructed in their efforts, the state’s version of an obstruction of justice charge would apply. Find these by using the following terms in the index to the state statutes: obstruction of justice, police, interference with arrest, interference with process, and crimes.

[ii] Robert M. Bloom, Searches, Seizures, and Warrants (Praeger 2003). This book tells about every aspect of law that applies to warrants for searches and seizures.

[iii] To learn more about police discretion, See American Bar Association, Standards Relating to the Urban Police Function 1-43 (1972 & Supp. 1973). (These standards were developed by a joint committee of ABA members and members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police). Also, search in the National Criminal Justice Resource Center for the phrase “police discretion” to get links to full-text articles, reports, and book chapters on the topic. http://www.ncjrs.gov/index.html

[iv] 39 Am. Jur. 2d Harboring Criminals § 3 (2006).

[v] A related but much more extreme legal obligation arises when a mental health professional knows that a client seeks to hurt someone. When that happens, the mental health professional is allowed to divulge confidential client information to police, but only to the extent necessary to protect the client’s intended victim. To read more about this and see a comparison of state laws, see John C. Williams, Liability of One Treating Mentally Afflicted Patient For Failure to Warn or Protect Third Persons Threatened by Patient, 83 A.L.R. 3d 1201.

[vi] Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Ed. 17 (1990).

[vii] Id. at 309.