San Francisco can not generally ban sleeping in public

Originally published at:


Misleading headline? The trial was in SF and the ruling might apply to SF too, but as far as I can tell the actual arrest in question was in Boise.

Or were homeless people from Boise arrested in San Francisco? I’m so confused. “The ruling could affect several other cities that have similar laws, including San Francisco” implies that the specific ruling was related to an arrest in some city other than SF (presumably Boise)…

1 Like

Arrests and court case in Boise, but since it got kicked up to US circuit court, it became federal, affecting all cities that have tried to impose a sleeping ban?

Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are not going to be happy about this.


The Ninth Circuit is headquartered in San Francisco so I think the court case moved there when it got kicked up to the circuit court.

1 Like

Count Portland amongst them. PPB has a hard-on for abusing, arresting, and killing houseless folk.


“Police can no longer arrest people for sleeping on the streets if they have nowhere else to go.”
This is clearly not San Francisco, unless they mean actually sleeping in the actual street, there is no enforcement of sleeping in public. In SF and sleeping outdoors, you must be pretty much presumed dead before a cop comes by to poke you.

I think the number of homeless people you have should be a measure of your economic health. I don’t have the stats to back this up, but with Reagan our homeless population in Austin shot way up. It was simply visible, if not counted. Something is seriously wrong when you got way more homeless than there is any good reason for.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
-Anatole France


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.