Question: Did the Program Violate the Rights of Homeless People?

HISTORY: Bobby Joe Joyce, Timothy E. Smith, Thomas O'Halloran, and Jim Tullah, homeless persons, brought an action against the city seeking a preliminary injunction against the Matrix Program that targeted violation of certain ordinances (quality of life offenses) and thus allegedly penalized homeless persons for engaging in life-sustaining activities. U.S. District Judge Lowell Jensen denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. JENSEN, J. FACTS Plaintiffs to this action seek preliminary injunctive relief, an order to stop enforcing the ordinances, on behalf of themselves and a class of homeless individuals alleged to be adversely affected by the City and County of San Francisco's (the "City's") "Matrix Program." Institution of the Matrix Program followed the issuance of a report in April 1992 by the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development, which attributed to homelessness a $173 million drain on sales in the City. In August of 1993, the City announced commencement of the Matrix Program, and the San Francisco Police Department began stringently enforcing a number of criminal laws. The City describes the program as "initiated to address citizen complaints about a broad range of offenses occurring on the streets and in parks and neighborhoods. [The Matrix Program is] a directed effort to end street crimes of all kinds." The program addresses quality of life offenses including public drinking and inebriation, obstruction of sidewalks, lodging, camping or sleeping in public parks, littering, public urination and defecation, aggressive panhandling, dumping of refuse, graffiti, vandalism, street prostitution, and street sales of narcotics, among others.

A four-page intradepartmental memorandum addressed to the Police Department's Southern Station Personnel condemned quality of life violations, the "type of behavior [which] tends to make San Francisco a less desirable place in which to live, work or visit," and directed the vigorous enforcement of 18 specified code sections, including prohibitions against trespassing, public inebriation, urinating or defecating in public, removal and possession of shopping carts, solicitation on or near a highway, erection of tents or structures in parks, obstruction and aggressive panhandling. The memorandum directed all station personnel, "When not otherwise engaged, pay special attention and enforce observed ‘Quality of Life' violations. " In a police department bulletin entitled "Update on Matrix Quality of Life Program," Deputy Chief Thomas Petrini referred to the intended nondiscriminatory policy of the program's enforcement measures: All persons have the right to use the public streets and places so long as they are not engaged in specific criminal activity. Factors such as race, sex, sexual preference, age, dress, unusual or disheveled or impoverished appearance do not alone justify enforcement action. Nor can generalized complaints by residents or merchants or others justify detention of any person absent such individualized suspicion. The memorandum stated that the "rights of the homeless must be preserved" and included as an attachment a department bulletin on "Rights of the Homeless," which stated that: All members of the Department are obligated to treat all persons equally, regardless of their economic or living conditions.

The homeless enjoy the same legal and individual rights afforded to others. Members shall at all times respect these rights. The police department has, during the pendency of the Matrix Program, conducted continuing education for officers regarding nondiscriminatory enforcement of the program. The plaintiffs, pointing to the discretion inherent in policing the law enforcement measures of the Matrix Program, allege certain actions taken by police to be "calculated to punish the homeless." As a general practice, the program is depicted by plaintiffs as "targeting hundreds of homeless persons who are guilty of nothing more than sitting on a park bench or on the ground with their possessions, or lying or sleeping on the ground covered by or on top of a blanket or cardboard carton." The City contests the depiction of Matrix as a singularly focused, punitive effort designed to move "an untidy problem out of sight and out of mind." The City emphasizes its history as one of the largest public providers of assistance to the homeless in the State, asserting that "individuals on general assistance in San Francisco are eligible for larger monthly grants than are available almost anywhere else in California." By its own estimate, the City will spend $46.4 million for services to the homeless for 1993-94. Of that amount, over $8 million is specifically earmarked to provide housing, and is spent primarily on emergency shelter beds for adults, families, battered women, and youths. An additional $12 million in general assistance grants is provided to those describing themselves as homeless, and free health care is provided by the City to the homeless at a cost of approximately $3 million. Since its implementation, the Matrix Program has resulted in the issuance of over 3,000 citations to homeless persons.

OPINION: The Court is called upon to decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction. Such relief constitutes an extraordinary use of the Court's powers, and is to be granted sparingly and with the ultimate aim of preserving the status quo pending trial on the merits. The decision whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief is largely left to its discretion. However, this discretion has been circumscribed by the presence or not of various factors, notably, the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits and the likelihood of harm to the parties from granting or denying the injunctive relief. The injunction sought by plaintiffs at this juncture of the litigation must be denied for each of two independent reasons. First, the proposed injunction lacks the necessary specificity to be enforceable, and would give rise to enforcement problems sufficiently inherent as to be incurable by modification of the proposal. Second, those legal theories upon which plaintiffs rely are not plainly applicable to the grievances sought to be vindicated, with the effect that the Court cannot find at this time that, upon conducting the required balance of harm and merit, plaintiffs have established a sufficient probability of success on the merits to warrant injunctive relief. Equal Protection Clause [Denial of equal protection requires proof that] governmental action [was] undertaken with an intent to discriminate against a particular individual or class of individuals. Such intent may be evinced by statutory language, or in instances where an impact which cannot be explained on a neutral ground unmasks an invidious discrimination. Under the latter approach, a neutral law found to have a disproportionately adverse effect upon a minority classification will be deemed unconstitutional only if that impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose. In the present case, plaintiffs have not at this time demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the equal protection claim, since the City's action has not been taken with an evinced intent to discriminate against an identifiable group. Various directives issued within the Police Department mandate the nondiscriminatory enforcement of Matrix.

Further, the Police Department has, during the pendency of the Matrix Program, conducted continuing education for officers regarding nondiscriminatory enforcement of the Program. It has not been proven at this time that Matrix was implemented with the aim of discriminating against the homeless. That enforcement of Matrix will, de facto, fall predominantly on the homeless does not in itself effect an equal protection clause violation. Even were plaintiffs able at this time to prove an intent to discriminate against the homeless, the challenged sections of the Program might nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny. Only in cases where the challenged action is aimed at a suspect classification, such as race or gender, or premised upon the exercise of a fundamental right, will the governmental action be subjected to a heightened scrutiny. Counsel for plaintiff proposed at the hearing that this Court should be the first to recognize as a fundamental right the "right to sleep." This is an invitation the Court, in its exercise of judicial restraint, must decline. The discovery of a right to sleep concomitantly requires prohibition of the government's interference with that right. This endeavor, aside from creating a jurisprudential morass, would involve this unelected branch of government in a legislative role for which it is neither fit, nor easily divested once established. Due Process of Law Plaintiffs contend the Matrix Program has been enforced in violation of the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically argue that due process has been violated by employing punitive policing measures against the homeless for sleeping in public parks. Plaintiffs claim that San Francisco Park Code section 3.12 has been applied by police in an unconstitutional manner.

That section provides, No person shall construct or maintain any building, structure, tent or any other thing in any park that may be used for housing accommodations or camping, except by permission from the Recreation and Park Commission. Plaintiffs contend the Police Department has impermissibly construed this provision to justify citing, arresting, threatening and "moving along" those "persons guilty of nothing more than sitting on park benches with their personal possessions or lying on or under blankets on the ground." Plaintiffs have submitted declarations of various homeless persons supporting the asserted application of the San Francisco Park Code section. It appears, if plaintiffs have accurately depicted the manner in which the section is enforced, that the section may have been applied to conduct not covered by the section and may have been enforced unconstitutionally. CONCLUSION In common with many communities across the country, the City is faced with a homeless population of tragic dimension. Today, plaintiffs have brought that societal problem before the Court, seeking a legal judgment on the efforts adopted by the City in response to this problem. The role of the Court is limited structurally by the fact that it may exercise only judicial power, and technically by the fact that plaintiffs seek extraordinary pretrial relief. The Court does not find that plaintiffs have made a showing at this time that constitutional barriers exist which preclude that effort. Accordingly, the Court's judgment at this stage of the litigation is to permit the City to continue enforcing those aspects of the Matrix Program now challenged by plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Questions: 1. Describe the main elements of the Matrix Program.

2. Why did San Francisco adopt the Matrix Program?

3. What are the plaintiffs' objections to the Matrix Program?

4. Assume you're the attorney for San Francisco and argue that the Court should deny the injunction.

5. Assume you're the attorney for the homeless people and argue that the Court should issue the injunction.

6. If you could, what terms would you include in an injunction in this case?