Legislative Analyst Report - San Francisco's 'Quality of Life' Laws and Seattle's 'Civility' Laws (File No. 011704)
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT
TO: The Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM: Elaine Forbes, Legislative Analyst1
HEARING: N/A
DATE: January 11, 2002
ISSUE: San Francisco"s "Quality of Life" Laws and Seattle"s "Civility" Laws
Summary of Request
A motion passed by the Board (File 01-1704) requests that the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) compare and contrast Seattle"s "civility" laws to San Francisco"s "quality of life" laws. In response, this report provides a brief background and overview of Seattle"s civility laws. It then compares Seattle"s civility laws and San Francisco"s quality of life laws primarily through a legal analysis. Unfortunately, data is not available to compare the resources allocated to the enforcement and prosecution of these laws. A follow-up report to this analysis, requested by the Board on December 3, 2001 and due in February 2002, will describe the current costs and methods for processing persons charged with quality of life offenses in San Francisco County and will consider best practices for integrating social services into the processing of quality of life offenses.
Executive Summary
Cities in the US seek solutions to problems such as neighborhood and commercial district blight, homelessness, run-away youth and other issues of concern to constituents, in the criminal justice system. Restrictions on sleeping or sitting in public areas, anti-begging laws, and police sweeps of public parks are a few examples of laws created and police action aimed to address urban issues. These types of laws are referred to as quality of life laws.
In the early 1990s, Seattle enacted several new laws, which are collectively referred to as Seattle"s "Street Civility Laws" or "Civility Laws", intended to regulate behavior on the streets. The City of San Francisco has approximately 12 municipal laws, which can be characterized as quality of life laws. This report compares Seattle"s civility laws to San Francisco"s quality of life laws and finds some notable differences. For example, Seattle has a city ordinance under which it is illegal to urinate or defecate intentionally in a public place. San Francisco does not have such an ordinance.
Also, according to the District Attorney"s and City Attorney"s Offices, several of San Francisco"s quality of life laws are difficult to prosecute due to the evidence requirements. Consequently, San Francisco may clarify existing quality of life laws so that the public understands exactly what behavior is prohibited, and the prohibited behavior can be more easily ticketed and enforced. Whether the City of San Francisco should take such action is a policy decision for the Board of Supervisors.
The City has an opportunity to write new and clarify existing quality of life laws. However, improving the laws alone may not address recidivism. Evidence suggests that improving the laws unaided may not have an impact on the behavior the laws prohibit (please see the Issues and Options section below for more detail). A follow-up report to this analysis, requested by the Board on December 3, 2001 and due in February 2002, will consider these issues in more detail. Specifically, the report will describe the current costs and methods for processing persons charged with quality of life offenses in San Francisco County and will consider best practices for integrating social services into the processing of quality of life offenses.
Issues and Options
According to members of San Francisco"s homeless advocacy and legal communities, the City has a long history of efforts to use stepped-up police enforcement and court sanctions to reduce incidences of the behaviors "quality of life" laws prohibit. According to attorneys who currently and formerly prosecuted quality of life cases for the City, a majority of persons charged with these offenses are homeless individuals, many of whom are "chronically homeless" and have substance abuse and/or mental health issues. Efforts to reduce incidences of these behaviors have had mixed results. According to former and current staff of the Mayor"s Criminal Justice Council, staff in the Mayor"s Office on Homelessness, court administrators, and prosecuting attorneys, several issues ought to be addressed in considering how to process these individuals in a manner that enhances public health and safety, addresses recidivism, and provides meaningful help to offenders.
1. The Current System
According to staffers in the Mayor"s Office on Homelessness and to local police officers in San Francisco, the current system of ticketing individuals who are charged with committing quality of life infractions and issuing arrest warrants when the tickets go unpaid provides an insufficient disincentive for those offenders who are homeless. Since members of this population tend to lack identification and a permanent place of residence, they are difficult to track and enforce judgements against. Furthermore, many of those charged with quality of life offenses are indigent and unable to pay tickets. Aside from the difficulties in tracking these individuals and in the inability of many offenders to pay tickets, according to the Mayor"s Office on Homelessness ticketing and issuing arrest warrants may not encourage homeless individuals to access city social services, which may reduce recidivism.
2. Addressing Recidivism in the Courts
The police departments and courts often devote the majority of their resources to addressing offenses generally considered to be more serious than quality of life infractions and misdemeanors. Consequently, quality of life offenses may be ignored and resources for appropriate case processing may be insufficient. For example, in San Francisco the majority of cases involving quality of life infractions are heard in Traffic Court. Traffic Commissioners are not trained to craft sentences for these types of offenses and opportunities to recommend treatment and social services are generally lost in this forum. According to data provided by the Superior Court, over 60% of quality of life infractions sampled2 were dismissed primarily due to lack of evidence and/or incomplete police reports. Of those remaining, approximately 30% issued a warrant for failing to appear, and very few (less than 5%) successfully completed pretrial diversion. Other court models, such as mental health, drug and community courts, may be better equipped to recommend treatment and social services.
Extensive social service access is often required to address and affect the underlying reasons for the behaviors that the quality of life laws prohibit. The courts may have an opportunity to address recidivism by integrating appropriate social services into the case processing system (as part of sanctions or part of pre-trial diversion options). However, in order for recidivism to be addressed in such a way, social service options must be accessible and social service providers must work closely with the courts, which requires agencies with differing organizational cultures to work collaboratively. Both of these requirements mandate high levels of coordination and social service funding. Shifting court priorities and developing the capacity of the courts to become de-facto case managers is difficult, according to San Francisco Superior Court administrators.
While providing social services through the courts may be a more effective way of reducing quality of life offenses than the status quo of ticketing and case processing, this proposed solution is not without difficulty and controversy. According to staff at San Francisco"s Department of Public Health and the Mayor"s Criminal Justice Council, determining the precise impact of social services on the population is somewhat difficult because some members of the population of suspected offenders are "dual-diagnosed"; that is, they have both substance abuse and mental health issues. Additionally, many are without a permanent residence, which is a primary factor in low long-term success rates after alcohol/ and or drug treatment.3 Finally, the Coalition on Homelessness advocates that the criminal justice system be separate from service providers and the provision of benefits.
Background
In the early 1990s, cities in the US began to seek solutions to problems such as neighborhood and commercial district blight, homelessness, run-away youth and other issues of concern to constituents in the criminal justice system. Restrictions on sleeping or sitting in public areas, anti-begging laws, and police sweeps of public parks are a few examples of laws created and police action aimed to address urban issues. Supporters of these "quality of life" laws point out that the laws help maintain the aesthetic quality of cities, work to safeguard public health and safety, and promote economic vitality in commercial and tourist districts. Critics of these measures state that the measures are overly broad, violate fundamental rights, and attack only the symptoms of homelessness without addressing the deep social and economic roots of the problem.
Current Law
Seattle
Background. According to George Kelling and Catherine Coles, in their book Fixing Broken Windows, concern over the concentration of homeless people in Seattle"s downtown commercial and tourist areas grew in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A growing constituency voiced concerns about people in the streets, whom they characterized as becoming more aggressive towards passersby. Various business owners and shoppers who used Seattle"s downtown area reported that congregations of persons on the sidewalks blocked passageways. Some pedestrians reported that they used the roadway in attempts to navigate around the homeless.4
Street Civility Laws. Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran spearheaded the development, proposal and eventual enactment of several new laws and encouraged the aggressive enforcement of existing ordinances, which regulated behavior on the streets. These new and previously existing laws are collectively referred to as Seattle"s "Street Civility Laws" or "Civility Laws".
In August of 1993, Mr. Sidran proposed his first "package" of civility ordinances, including an ordinance against public urination, an amendment to the existing pedestrian interference law (i.e., aggressive begging), and the "no sit/lie on sidewalks" law, as well as ordinances addressing alcohol-related offenses, and those permitting the closing of certain alleys to the public. The Seattle City Council passed these ordinances one month later, amidst marches and demonstrations by civil rights, homeless, and church groups opposing the ordinance.5
Both the pedestrian interference and the "no sit/lie" laws were challenged in federal district court on grounds of overbreadth, and violation of due process and equal protection. In Roulette v. City of Seattle, the federal district court upheld both ordinances as valid exercises of governmental police power.6 Advocates appealed the district court"s decision on the "no sit/lie" law. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit upheld the ordinance in a 2-1 decision.
Mark Sidran and the Seattle City Council went on to enact other laws which were dubbed civility laws: the "poster ban" of 1994, the "graffiti ordinance" of 1996, the "parks exclusion" law of 1997, the "impound ordinance" of 1998, and the "dangerous animals" ordinance of 1999. In addition, there was more emphasis placed by the City Attorney"s office on enforcement of other related ordinances already on the books.
San Francisco
The City of San Francisco has approximately 12 municipal laws, which can be characterized as quality of life laws (please see Table 1 for a complete description). Unlike Seattle, these laws were not introduced as a package. Instead, they where enacted in the late 1970s through the early 1990s.
In addition to the municipal laws, the California Penal Code and the Health and Safety Code have several laws which can be characterized as quality of life laws.
Jurisdictional Comparison:
Comparison of Seattle"s Civility Laws and San Francisco"s Quality of Life Laws
A. Seattle"s Four Major Civility Laws
This report designates four laws as the primary civility laws in Seattle. Three of the four (public urination, no sit/no lie, and aggressive begging) were all part of the original "package" of civility laws that Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran proposed in 1993. Two of the four - the no sit/no lie law and the aggressive begging ordinance - have been challenged on constitutionality grounds and upheld in state and federal courts. The fourth law - park exclusion - although enacted in 1997, is included in this list because it has also been the subject of considerable criticism by the media advocates for the homeless.
1. Public Urination
Seattle has a city ordinance under which it is illegal to urinate or defecate intentionally in a public place, other than a restroom, under circumstances in which a member of the public could observe such an act. San Francisco does not have a city ordinance concerning urination or defecation in public places. There have been several attempts in the past by the City Attorney"s Office and the District Attorney to use a California State law to prosecute people for public urination. California Penal Code Section 374.3(a) outlaws the dumping of any "waste" onto any street. However, the law does not define waste to include urine, and there is a legal issue as to whether this law is intended to prohibit such behavior. The few times this issue has come up in the San Francisco courts, the decisions have not consistently found this California code to apply to public urination.
2. No sitting / lying on Sidewalks
Seattle"s "no sit/no lie" law outlaws sitting on public sidewalks between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. in certain business zones of the city. A person can only be issued a citation after they have been notified by a police officer that his or her conduct violates the law and s/he continues the conduct. The San Francisco law most similar to this is the "obstruction of any street, sidewalk" law. This law outlaws the willful and substantial obstruction of the free passage of persons. There are several notable differences between the two ordinances. First, San Francisco"s law requires criminal intent to obstruct free passage. In prosecuting such a law, one must offer evidence to prove not only that the alleged offender obstructed the sidewalk, but also that s/he intended to obstruct it. This requirement results in an evidentiary issue that makes the case more difficult to prosecute. On the other hand, Seattle"s law requires no criminal intent but merely the commission of the prohibited act. Thus, all that is needed by the prosecution is evidence of the behavior.
The second notable difference is that the application of the Seattle law is limited to certain business zones and daytime hours (7 a.m. to 9 p.m.). Thus, in zones not designated as the business zones, a person may lawfully sit or lie on the sidewalk at any time, and a person may sit or lie on the sidewalk in the designated business zones at night. San Francisco"s law is much broader, as it outlaws intentionally obstructing the sidewalk in any area of the city, at any time, day or night.
The third difference between these two laws is the notice requirement. Seattle"s ordinance requires that a person must first be warned by a police officer that s/he are in violation, giving the person the opportunity to avoid a citation by moving on. San Francisco"s ordinance has no such notice requirement.
Finally, the penalty for violations is slightly different in each city. A violation of Seattle"s "no sit/no lie" law results in a $50 citation. A violation of San Francisco"s "obstruction" law may warrant a fine of up to $500.
In sum, Seattle"s no sit/no lie law is facially narrower. It is targeted at very specific behavior, in specific areas of the city and at specific times of the day. One legal commentary stated that Seattle"s no sit/ no lie law is different from San Francisco"s approach in that it is not intended to "drive out" the city"s homeless because it does not deny the homeless a public place to lawfully sleep at night. "Specifically, the downtown sidewalks may be used for sleeping after 9 p.m." Thus, Seattle"s law does not punish people for sleeping on the sidewalks at night, giving homeless persons a place where they can lawfully engage in the life-sustaining activity of sleeping.7
3. Aggressive Begging
According to the San Francisco City Attorney"s Office, begging has been held by many courts as constitutionally protected expression under the First and Fourteenth amendments. However, many courts have found municipal ordinances that outlaw "aggressive" begging to be constitutional exercises of governmental power because they regulate non-expressive conduct.
Seattle"s aggressive begging law applies only when the alleged offender shows the intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods. Thus, a prosecutor must show evidence of the person"s criminal intent to intimidate. This showing of intent, as discussed above, is often difficult to prove. San Francisco"s aggressive soliciting ordinance has language that is more specific in its description of the characteristics of "aggressive soliciting". It specifies that the solicitor must be "closely following" and "requesting money" after the solicitee has "made it known" that s/he does not want to give money to the solicitor. Thus, the characteristics of the offending behavior are more clearly defined in San Francisco"s ordinance. The penalty is also different - whereas in Seattle the offense is a misdemeanor, in San Francisco, the first offense is an infraction.
Notably, San Francisco"s ordinance was challenged and found unconstitutional in Blair v. CCSF, but the court vacated its order declaring the statute unconstitutional. According to the City Attorney"s Office, any future challenge to the ordinance would likely be decided by the same judge and could again be held unconstitutional. The ordinance may not be enforced because of the court"s decision in Blair v. CCSF, despite the fact that that decision is not legally binding.
4. Park Exclusion and other park rules
Seattle"s "park banishment" ordinance allows the police to ban from parks people who violate "any park rule", such as rules prohibiting camping or drinking alcohol. The time periods are specifically laid out - for the first offense, an officer may ban the offender for one to seven days. However, the ban for repeat offenses goes up to 90 days, and then one year. Violating the ban while it is still in effect is a misdemeanor offense. San Francisco also has an ordinance, which allows the police or park employees to order any person to stay out of or leave a park when there is reasonable cause to believe s/he is committing certain offenses. Two of these offenses involve the consumption or use of alcohol or drugs; the other two involve damaging park structures, disobeying the rules of athletic facilities, or being too "boisterous" at sporting events at the park. The order to leave or stay out has no specified time period, and on its face, appears to apply only while the person is engaging in the specified activity. In addition, there are San Francisco ordinances that regulate other behavior in the city"s parks, violations of which are punishable by fines or jail time. No provisions are within these ordinances, however, for banning the alleged offenders from city parks.
B. Other Ordinances
Both Seattle and San Francisco have other ordinances that are identified in this report as civility laws or quality of life laws. Many of these laws have been in effect for many years, while some have been newly enacted within the past decade. In most areas, the differences between the two cities are not significant. A number of them are listed in Table 1 for comparison purposes, but they are not elaborated upon in this report. However, three of these "other" ordinances, those pertaining to consumption of alcohol in public areas, camping and trespassing, do present notable facial differences between the two cities" approaches.
1. Consumption of Alcohol in Public Areas
Seattle"s ordinance makes it unlawful to consume, open, or possess an open container of alcohol in a public place. San Francisco"s law makes it unlawful to consume any alcoholic beverage in the street. Thus, the San Francisco ordinance requires evidence that the alleged offender was "consuming" the alcohol. In contrast, the Seattle ordinance requires evidence of either consumption of alcohol or possession of an open container of alcohol. Thus, on its face, there appears to be more flexibility in prosecuting the Seattle law than the San Francisco ordinance. San Francisco"s police officers also use the state law, California Penal Code, Section 647, Drinking in Public which according the District Attorney"s office is easier to prosecute.
2. Camping
Seattle"s anti-camping ordinance is an older law that is used alone and in conjunction with enforcement of the more recent laws identified as "civility" laws. The language of Seattle"s anti-camping law simply makes it unlawful to camp in any park, except in places specifically set aside and posted for such purposes. On its face, the definition of "camping" is not clear. San Francisco"s anti-camping ordinance specifies that it is unlawful to sleep in any park between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and that it is unlawful to maintain any tent or other such structure in any park without permission. Thus, San Francisco"s law is more specific about the prohibited behavior. However, according to the City Attorney"s Office, the City does not limit the application of this section to tents and the vagueness of the language has been an issue for some time.
3. Trespassing
To be convicted under Seattle"s criminal trespass ordinance, the law requires that an individual "knowingly enter or remain" on the property in question. San Francisco"s trespass law criminalizes similar conduct, as it restricts persons from "willfully" entering upon or remaining on private property. Seattle and San Francisco"s laws differ in three ways. First, Seattle"s criminal trespass ordinance has more serious penalties for trespass in a building, as opposed to trespass on other property (land). San Francisco"s ordinance does not have a more serious penalty for trespass in a building. Second, San Francisco requires that the person be given oral or written notice that s/he is requested to leave, and further, that such notice must describe the specific area and hours to keep off or keep away. Finally, an offender of Seattle"s ordinance is charged with a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor. An offender of San Francisco"s ordinance is charged with an infraction.
Conclusion
A review of the laws in both cities reveals that San Francisco may tighten the language of the existing quality of life laws so that the public understands exactly what behavior is prohibited, and the prohibited behavior can be more easily ticketed and enforced. However, improving the laws alone may not address recidivism. Evidence, such as that presented in the Issues and Options section above, suggests that improving the laws unaided may not have a large impact on behaviors the laws seek to correct. Whether the City should adopt quality of life laws more similar to those in Seattle is a policy decision for the Board of Supervisors.
Jurisdictional Comparison:
Table 1: Seattle"s Civility Laws Compared to San Francisco"s Quality of Life Laws
Four Major Seattle Civility Laws | Seattle | San Francisco | |
|---|---|---|---|
Public Urination | Code | SMC 12A.10.100 - Urinating in public. | No comparable SF Quality of Life Law. NOTE: There have been several efforts in San Francisco in the past to use California Penal Code Section 374.3(a) (making it illegal to dump any waste on any street, park, or right-of-way) to go after people urinating in public, but it has not been used consistently or with any great success. |
Date of Enactment | 1993 | ||
Important Features | Increased penalty for urinating or defecating in public / repeat offenders are guilty of a misdemeanor. | ||
Penalties | Infraction with a fine up to $500 for first time offenders - repeat offenders charged with a misdemeanor, up to $1000 fine and up to 90 days in jail. | ||
No sitting/Lying down on sidewalks /commercial zones | Code | SMC 15.48.040.050 - Sitting or lying down on public sidewalk in downtown and neighborhood commercial zones. | San Francisco Police Code, Article 1, Sec. 22-24 - Obstructing any street, sidewalk, passageway or other public way prohibited. |
Date of Enactment | 1993 | 1979 | |
Important Features | Outlaws any sitting on public sidewalks between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. in certain business zones of the city. The law states that a person can only be cited if they continue conduct after being notified by a police officer that the conduct violates this law. | Makes it illegal to willfully and substantially obstruct the free passage of persons on any public passageway or place. | |
Penalties | Violation is an infraction, punishable by fines of up to $50. Failure to sign the citation or appear in court constitutes a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the notice of infraction. A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine up to $1000 and up to 90 days of jail time. | First offense is an infraction, punishable by a $50-$500 fine; a second offense either within 24 hours of being cited for same violation or within 120 days of being convicted of same violation is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $500 and/or jail time up to six months. |
Seattle | San Francisco | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Aggressive Begging | Code | SMC 12A.12.015 - Pedestrian interference | San Francisco Police Code, Article 2, Sec. 120-1 - Aggressive Soliciting Prohibited |
Date of Enactment | 1987, amended in 1993 | Added by Proposition J, 1992 | |
Important Features | Police can cite or arrest a person if they "aggressively beg" - beg with an intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods. | Aggressive soliciting is defined as a solicitor closely following a solicitee and requesting money or other things of value after the solicitee has expressly or impliedly made it known to the solicitor that the solicitee does not want to give money or other things of value to the solicitor. Any person violating this section a second time within a thirty-day period is charged with a misdemeanor. A third and any subsequent citations within a thirty-day period result in higher fines. | |
Penalties | Misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $1000 and/or 90-day county jail sentence. | -Infraction punishable by a fine between $50 and $100 and/or community service -Misdemeanor punishable by a fine between $200 - $500, (depending on whether repeat violation), and/or community service, or by fine and/or County Jail time of not more than six months. | |
Park Exclusion | Code | SMC 18.12.278 - Park exclusion. | San Francisco Park Code, Article 4, Section 4.10 - Alcoholic Beverages; Section 4.11 - Persons Intoxicated by Alcohol or Drugs May be Excluded; Section 4.12 - Persons may be excluded under certain circumstances |
Date of Enactment | 1997 | 1981, amended in 2000 | |
Important Features | Police have power to ban people from 1 day to 1 year, depending on whether repeat violation, if they violate "any park rule", violate a previously issued "park ban", or violate "any park rule" within one year of a previous park rule violation. | Authorizes ouster of persons undertaking certain conduct in parks by city employees. For example, police or park employees may order any person to stay out of or leave any park when there is reasonable cause to believe the person is consuming alcoholic beverages or is using a controlled substance. | |
Penalties | Exclusion for periods of 1- 7 days, 90 days, or 1 year, depending on whether repeat violation. If one violates the ban while it is still in effect, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by fines up to $1000 and imprisonment up to 90 days. | Exclusion from park by city employee, but only for period of time that person is disobeying these codes. |
Laws commonly used for offenses in Public Parks | Seattle | San Francisco | |
|---|---|---|---|
Alcohol in Public Parks | Code | SMC 18.12.255 - Liquor offenses SMC 18.12.257 - Unlawful possession of liquor in a public park | San Francisco Park Code, Article 4, Sec. 4.15 - Intoxication by Alcohol or Drugs |
Date of Enactment | 1987 | 1981 | |
Important Features | Makes it unlawful to consume, or open or possess an open container holding any liquor, in any park. Makes it unlawful to possess an unopened container of liquor in a park. | Calls attention to fact that any person in a public place who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and endangers himself or others or interferes with the free use of a public way is guilty under State law of disorderly conduct. | |
Penalties | Violation is an infraction, punishable by a fine or forfeiture not to exceed $500. | Up to $500 fine and/or jail time up to 6 months) or infraction (fines from $10 to $100) | |
Camping | Code | SMC 18.12.250 - Camping. | San Francisco Park Code, Article 3, Section 3.12 - Camping Prohibited; Section 3.13 - Sleeping Prohibited During Certain Hours |
Date of Enactment | 1977 | 1981 | |
Important Features | Makes it unlawful to camp in any park except at places set aside and posted for such purposes by the Superintendent. | Unlawful to construct or maintain any structure or tent in a park without permission of Parks and Rec. Dept.; unlawful to sleep in any park between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. | |
Penalties | Infraction with a fine of up to $500. To avoid a magistrate hearing, may pay bail amount of $47. | May be guilty of an infraction ($10 to $100 fine, depending on whether first offense) or a misdemeanor (up to $500 fine and /or 6 months in County Jail). | |
Park Rules | Code | No comparable Seattle Civility Laws | San Francisco Park Code, Article 3, Section 3.01 - Rules of Park Commission to be Obeyed |
Date of Enactment | 1981 | ||
Important Features | Unlawful to violate rules of the Recreation and Park Commission | ||
Penalties | Depends on particular violation | ||
Obey Signs | Code | No comparable Seattle Civility Laws | San Francisco Park Code, Article 3, Section 3.02 - Signs to be obeyed. |
Date of Enactment | 1981 | ||
Important Features | Unlawful to violate signs posted by the Recreation and Park Commission. | ||
Penalties | Depends on particular violation |
Other Laws | Seattle | San Francisco | |
|---|---|---|---|
Consumption of Alcohol on Streets/sidewalks - Public drunkenness | Code | SMC 12A.24.025 - Unlawful consuming of liquor, opening a container of liquor, or possessing an open container of liquor, each in a public place. | San Francisco Police Code, Article 1, Section 21 - Consuming Alcoholic Beverages on Public Streets, etc., or on Public Property Open to Public View Prohibited State law also: California Penal Code, Section 647(f) - Drinking in Public, misdemeanor |
Date of Enactment | 1987, amended in 1993 and 1994 | 1986, Amended 1997 | |
Important Features | Makes it unlawful to open or possess a bottle, can or other receptacle containing liquor in a public place, or to consume liquor in a public place. | Makes it unlawful to consume any quantity of alcoholic beverage in any public street or thoroughfare, or within 15 feet of any public way while on a private stairway, doorway, or other private property open to public view without permission of the owner of the premises. | |
Penalties | This is technically a misdemeanor, but it is handled like an infraction, with a fine up to $100 and no jail time. However, if you twice violate this section, or twice fail to appear or sign the citation for a violation of this section, then the subsequent violation is a misdemeanor and is punishable by fines up to $1000 and jail time up to one year. | Violation is an infraction, punishable by a $25-$100 fine. | |
Trespassing | Code | SMC 12A.08.040 - Criminal trespass | San Francisco Police Code, Article 1, Section 25 - Remaining Upon Private or Business Property After Being Requested to Leave |
Date of Enactment | 1973, last amended in 1991 | 1979 | |
Important Features | Makes it unlawful to knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in a private building or on land. To knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in a building is a gross misdemeanor. To knowingly enter or remain unlawfully on land is a misdemeanor. | Unlawful to willfully enter upon or remain on private property or business premises after owner of premises asks person to leave. Must be given oral or written notice of request to leave premises, and such notice must describe the specific area and hours to keep off or keep away. | |
Penalties | Misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $1000 and/or imprisonment of up to 90 days. A gross misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of up to $5000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. | Violation is an infraction, with a fine between $50 - $500 after notification of violation. |
Seattle | San Francisco | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Animal Control | Code | SMC 12A.06.060 - Negligent control of an animal | San Francisco Health Code, Article 1, Section 41.5.1 - Biting Dogs |
Date of Enactment | 1999 | 1978 | |
Important Features | Makes owner of an animal that inflicts bodily injury on another person subject to criminal penalties if the injury occurs due to the owner"s negligence. | Sets-up process for impoundment and humane destruction of menacing dogs. Also cites owners for second and subsequent bites within a 12-month period. | |
Penalties | Gross misdemeanor, punishable by fines up to $5000 and imprisonment up to one year. | Misdemeanor for dog owner - punishable by fine between $25-$500, or jail not to exceed 6 months. | |
Vehicle Impound Ordinance for Driving with Suspended Licenses | Code | SMC 11.30.105 - Impoundment of vehicle where driver is arrested for a violation of Section 11.56.320 or 11.56.340 - Period of Impoundment | No comparable SF Quality of Life Law |
Date of Enactment | 1998, amended in 2000 | ||
Important Features | Allows city to impound cars on the spot if the owners are caught driving with suspended licenses. | ||
Penalties | Car is impounded for 30-90 days. | ||
Posting of Signs/Poster Ban | Code | SMC 15.48.100 - Unlawful posting of signs | No comparable SF Quality of Life Law |
Date of Enactment | 1994 | ||
Important Features | Makes it illegal to post a flier on public property - poles, bus stops, etc. | ||
Penalties | Infraction with a fine of up to $250. To avoid a magistrate hearing the bail amount is also $250. | ||
Graffiti Ordinance | Code | SMC 10.07.070. Abatement by the City | San Francisco Public Works Code, Article 23, Section 1300-1308 - Graffiti Removal |
Date of Enactment | 1996 | 1994 | |
Important Features | Mandates civil penalties for private property owners who fail to remove graffiti from their property. Allows the city to remove the graffiti and then charge the property owner for the clean-up costs. | Establishes graffiti abatement procedure and cost recovery from property owners. | |
Penalties | Not an infraction or a crime, but a civil remedy. Costs of correcting the violation, including the value and use of city staff and equipment. | Not an infraction or a crime. Costs of correcting the violation, including the value and use of city staff and equipment. |
Seattle | San Francisco | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Selling Goods on Street | Code | SMC 15.17.005 - Vending and display in public places, and 15.17.050 - Street vending near the Kingdome | San Francisco Police code, Article 13, Section 869 - Permit Required |
Date of Enactment | 1995 | 1982 | |
Important Features | Makes it unlawful to display for sale to public or sell goods in a public place without a permit. | Unlawful to sell goods without obtaining permit and paying fee. | |
Penalties | Misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a fine of up to $3000 and 30 days in jail. | Infraction or misdemeanor | |
1 This report was prepared with the assistance of Lisa Williams and Christina Fong. Lisa Williams, a third-year Hastings Law Student, provided research, analysis and writing for this report. Christina Fong, Student Intern, provided background research for the report.
2 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages, Aggressive Soliciting, No Sit/No Lye, and Dumping of Waste.
3 Dennis P. Culhane, Stephen Metraux, and Trevor Hadley, The Impact of Supportive Housing for Homeless People with Severe Mental Illness on the Utilization of the Public Health Correction, and Emergency Shelter Systems: The New York-New York Initiative. Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research University of Pennsylvania, May 2001.
4 See Kelling, George, and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities, 1996, p. 214-215.
5 See http://www.service.com/paw/morgue/news/1996_July_19.SEATTLE.html
6 See Berg, William M. Roulette v. City of Seattle: A City Lives With Its Homeless, Seattle University Law Review, Fall 1994, Volume 18, 150.
7 Berg, William M., Roulette v. City of Seattle: A City Lives With Its Homeless, Seattle University Law Review, Volume 18, 186.