Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Boise, Idaho, Petitioner v. Robert Martin, et al.

No. 19-247

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

__________________

CITY OF BOISE,

v.

Petitioner,

ROBERT MARTIN, LAWRENCE LEE SMITH, ROBERT

ANDERSON, JANET F. BELL, PAMELA S. HAWKES, AND

BASIL E. HUMPHREY,

Respondents.

__________________

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

__________________

BRIEF OF THE BUILDING OWNERS AND

MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF OREGON AS

AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

PETITIONER

__________________

OWEN BLANK

Counsel of Record

MICHAEL WILLES

TIMOTHY WRIGHT

TONKON TORP LLP

888 SW Fifth Avenue

Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204

(503) 221-1440

owen.blank@tonkon.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I.

THE HOLDING AND LOGIC OF MARTIN

THREATEN MUNICIPALITIES’ ABILITY

TO REGULATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS . . . 3

II.

OREGON IS IN THE MIDST OF A

HOMELESSNESS CRISIS, WHICH HAS

ONLY GROWN MORE SEVERE SINCE

MARTIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A. By objective measures, communities

throughout Oregon have high levels of

homelessness, the effects of which

prejudice public health and safety . . . . . . 6

B. BOMA Oregon members feel the effects of

the homelessness crisis beyond financial

considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III.

MARTIN PLACES BOMA OREGON

MEMBERS IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Blake v. City of Grants Pass,

No. 18-cv-01823, 2019 WL 3717800

(D. Or. Aug. 7, 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Harris v. Sanders,

919 P.2d 512 (Or. Ct. App. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Jones v. City of Los Angeles,

444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated,

505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Marsh v. McLaughlin,

309 P.2d 188 (Or. 1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Martin v. City of Boise,

902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018),

amended and superseded by,

920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

Martin v. City of Boise,

920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . passim

O’Callaghan v. City of Portland,

736 F. Appx. 704 (9th Cir. 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

Olson v. Chuck,

259 P.2 128 (Or. 1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Sims v. Besaw’s Cafe,

997 P.2d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CONSTITUTION

U.S. Const. amend. VIII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 4

iii

CODES

Albany City Code § 7.84.210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Albany City Code § 7.84.215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Beaverton City Code § 5.05.018(D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Boise City Code § 9-10-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Eugene City Code § 7.375(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Eugene City Code § 7.375(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Medford City Code § 5.257. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Portland City Code § 14A.50.020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Portland City Code § 17.28.020(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Salem Code of Ordinances § 78.220(a) . . . . . . . . . . 12

Salem Code of Ordinances § 78.220(b) . . . . . . . . . . 12

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Everton Bailey Jr., Malfunctioning Stove Sparks

Fire, Burning Portland Homeless Camp,

Neighboring House (Oregon Live Posted Dec. 6,

2016;

Updated

Jan.

9,

2019),

https://bit.ly/2laj4A8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

City of Portland, Or. City Budget Off., 2019

Portland Insights Survey (Aug. 2019),

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article/740

406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Downtown Portland, Or. Clean & Safe Dist.,

Internal Cleaning Statistics, 2016-2019 . . . . . . . 9

iv

Downtown Portland, Or. Clean & Safe Dist., Yearly

Clean & Safe Program Statistics,

http://cleanandsafepdx.com/cleaning-security/

yearly-statistics.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Brittany Falkers, Portland Fire & Rescue Has

Responded to More Than 1000 Homeless-Related

Fires in Last 3 Years, KGW (July 30, 2019),

https://bit.ly/2ladKNj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Lane Cty., Or., 2019 Point in Time Count Rep. (May

2019), https://www.lanecounty.org/cms/one.aspx

?pageId=6095987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Multnomah Cty., Or., Joint Off. of Homeless Servs.,

2019 Point-in-Time Count of Homelessness in

Portland/Gresham/Multnomah Cty., Or.,

https://bit.ly/2l0HOuU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urb. Dev., 2018 Ann.

Homeless Assessment Rep. to Congress (Dec.

2018), https://files.hudexchange.info/resou

rces/documents/2018-AHAR-Part-1.pdf . . . . . . 2, 6

Maggie Vespa, Portland Police Will Not Cite

Homeless for Sleeping on Streets, Citing Court

Ruling, KGW (Sept. 7, 2018),

https://bit.ly/2mavRCV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus curiae Building Owners and Managers

Association of Oregon (“BOMA Oregon”) is the leading

commercial real estate membership organization in

Oregon. Founded in 1915, BOMA Oregon serves more

than 50 million square feet of office, retail, medical,

and industrial space throughout the state. The

commercial real estate industry is a significant engine

of economic growth. It supplies jobs in addition to space

where businesses of all sizes can operate. Through

advocacy and impact litigation, BOMA Oregon

promotes its core values of accountability,

collaboration, engagement, ethics, leadership, and

professionalism.1

On a daily basis, BOMA Oregon’s members address

the human tragedy of those experiencing homelessness.

By filing this brief, BOMA Oregon desires to illustrate

the current state of the homelessness crisis in Oregon

and specific unforeseen consequences of the lower

court’s decision.

1

Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amicus affirms that no counsel for any

party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person

other than amicus, its members, or its counsel made a monetary

contribution to its preparation or submission. Counsel of record for

all parties received notice at least 10 days before the due date of

the intention of amicus to file this brief. All parties have filed

blanket consents to the filing of amicus curiae briefs with the

Clerk.

2

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

After emergency workers and service providers, the

members of BOMA Oregon and their tenants have

perhaps more contact with individuals experiencing

homelessness than any other group in the State of

Oregon. BOMA Oregon and its members have a long

history of advocating on behalf of the homeless and of

supporting policies, programs, and charitable

organizations that seek to break the cycle of poverty.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise

offers no solutions for the homelessness crisis that has

gripped much of the west coast of the United States.

First, Martin reads the Eighth Amendment’s

protections against cruel and unusual punishment too

broadly. As predicted, the precedent is already being

pressed into service to invalidate ordinances that allow

municipalities to protect the health and safety of their

residents.

Second, data show the depths of the homelessness

crisis in Oregon, which, of the fifty states, had the

third-highest rate of homelessness in 2018.2 BOMA

Oregon draws the Court’s attention to the public-safety

and sanitation problems that businesses and residents

throughout the state already endure. Not only do they

bear witness to the human toll exacted by the

homelessness crisis, they also lose business, employees,

2

U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urb. Dev., 2018 Ann. Homeless

Assessment Rep. to Congress 24 (Dec. 2018),

https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHARPart-1.pdf [hereinafter AHAR].

3

and peace of mind. Martin assures that conditions will

deteriorate for whole communities if it remains the law

of the Ninth Circuit.

Finally, the panel’s decision fails to anticipate the

legal ramifications of its logic and holding. Under

Oregon law and local ordinances, property owners may

be subject to increased liabilities because they have

fewer tools to address encampments on property that

they are required to keep in good condition.

Accordingly, BOMA Oregon supports the City of

Boise’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

ARGUMENT

I.

THE HOLDING AND LOGIC OF MARTIN

THREATEN MUNICIPALITIES’ ABILITY

TO REGULATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

Two days after deciding Martin, the same Ninth

Circuit panelists held in another case that a U.S.

District Court had erred in denying a “Motion to

Declare” City of Portland, Oregon’s prohibition on

camping unconstitutional. O’Callaghan v. City of

Portland, 736 F. Appx. 704, 705 (9th Cir. 2018) (Op.

Berzon, Watford, & Owens, JJ.). Whereas they had

held in Martin that “an ordinance violates the Eighth

Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions

against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on

public property, when no alternative shelter is

available to them,” 902 F.3d 1031, 1035 (emphasis

added), the holding underwent a subtle expansion

when restated in O’Callaghan: “We recently held that

a city ordinance prohibiting individuals from sleeping

outside on public property may violate the Eighth

4

Amendment when enforced against homeless

individuals who have no access to alternative shelter.”

736 F. Appx. at 705 (emphasis added) (citing Martin,

902 F.3d at 1035; Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th

Cir. 2007)).3

The City of Boise’s petition for a writ of certiorari

raises critical issues about the Eighth Amendment’s

reach and practical effects on communities throughout

the Ninth Circuit. Though Martin asserts that its

“holding is a narrow one,” the decision revives language

from Jones for the proposition “‘that the Eighth

Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an

involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable

consequence of one’s status or being.’” Martin, 920 F.3d

at 616 (quoting 444 F.3d at 1135).

The concerns Judge Milan Smith expressed in a

dissent from the circuit’s denial of rehearing Martin en

banc resonate with BOMA Oregon’s members:

As if the panel’s actual holding wasn’t

concerning enough, the logic of the panel’s

opinion reaches even further in scope. The

opinion reasons that because ‘resisting the need

to . . . engage in [] life-sustaining activities is

impossible,’ punishing the homeless for engaging

in those actions in public violates the Eighth

Amendment. What else is a life-sustaining

activity? Surely bodily functions.

3

The original opinion in Martin, 902 F.3d 1031, was amended and

superseded at 920 F.3d 584 (2019). The holding did not change.

5

Martin, 920 F.3d at 596 (M. Smith, J., dissenting from

denial of rehearing en banc) (omissions in original).

By establishing such a broad precedent, Judge

Smith reasoned, the panel not only doomed ordinances

similar to Boise’s,4 but other generally applicable

public-health and -safety laws too. These may include

prohibitions on public urination and defecation.

Likewise, “[t]he panel’s reasoning also casts doubt

on . . . laws restricting drug paraphernalia, for the use

of hypodermic needles and the like is no less

involuntary for the homeless suffering from the scourge

of addiction than is . . . sleeping in public.” Id.

In short, the panel “crafted a holding that has

begun wreaking havoc on local governments, residents,

and businesses throughout [the] circuit.” Id. at 590.

4

Compare, e.g., Albany City Code §§ 7.84.210, 7.84.215 (providing

that it is a violation to “camp in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley,

lane, public right-of-way, park or any other publicly owned

property or under any bridge or viaduct, unless otherwise allowed

by declaration of the City Manager or his/her designee in

emergency situations”) & Medford City Code § 5.257 (providing

that it is a violation to “camp in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley,

lane, public right-of-way, park, or any other publicly-owned

property or under any bridge or viaduct, unless otherwise

specifically authorized by this code or by declaration of the Mayor

in emergency circumstances”), with Boise City Code § 9-10-02

(quoted in Martin, 920 F.3d at 603) (providing that it is a

misdemeanor to use “any of the streets, sidewalks, parks, or public

places as a camping place at any time”).

6

II.

OREGON IS IN THE MIDST OF A

HOMELESSNESS CRISIS, WHICH HAS

ONLY GROWN MORE SEVERE SINCE

MARTIN.

A. By objective measures, communities

throughout Oregon have high levels of

homelessness, the effects of which

prejudice public health and safety.

According to the 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment

Report, published by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (“HUD”), Oregon, Hawaii, and

California, “had the highest rates of individuals

experiencing homelessness, [each] with 50 or more

individuals experiencing homelessness per 10,000

individuals.”5 The severity of the issue comes into

greater focus at the local level. A City of Portland

survey published in August 2019 revealed that

respondents across every racial and age group viewed

homelessness as the biggest challenge facing the city.

They cited homelessness throughout the survey,

including listing it “as the reason why people moved

and why people did not participate in Parks

programs.”6

Data support those respondents’ concerns. For

example, the 2019 Portland State University Point-inTime Analysis, which provides an annual count of

“people . . . sleeping outdoors, in public spaces, vehicles

5

6

AHAR at 24.

City of Portland, Or. City Budget Off., 2019 Portland Insights

Survey 3 (Aug. 2019), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article

/740406.

7

and places not meant for human habitation,” showed

an increase in that population to 2037.7 That is a

22.1% increase from the last count, conducted in 2017.8

Moreover, due to a decrease in the number of people “in

shelter and transitional housing,” the percentage of the

HUD homeless population that is unsheltered

increased to 50.7%.9

The crisis is not limited to Oregon’s most-populous

city. Lane County, which includes Eugene and more

rural areas, this year counted 2165 people experiencing

homelessness, including 1633 unsheltered people.10

That represents a 32% year-over-year increase in the

total number of people experiencing homelessness “and

a 44% increase in the number of people experiencing

unsheltered homelessness.”11

B. BOMA Oregon members feel the effects

of the homelessness crisis beyond

financial considerations.

BOMA Oregon members bear a significant cost

associated with unregulated camping. They lose

business and now spend more on security and cleanup

as the homelessness crisis reaches new extremes. But

7

Multnomah Cty., Or., Joint Off. of Homeless Servs., 2019 Pointin-Time Count of Homelessness in Portland/Gresham/Multnomah

Cty., Or. 7, https://bit.ly/2l0HOuU.

8

Id.

9

Id.

10

Lane Cty., Or., 2019 Point in Time Count Rep. 3 (May 2019),

https://www.lanecounty.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=6095987.

11

Id.

8

the concerns of BOMA Oregon members extend beyond

profitability; community health and public safety are

under threat too.

Members of BOMA Oregon own and manage

buildings with street-level commercial storefronts all

over the state. Building out one of these locales is a

significant capital expenditure and a source of good

jobs. One BOMA Oregon member reports that a

retailer recently expressed interest in building out a

large ground-floor space. After an initial analysis,

however, the potential tenant scuttled the

multimillion-dollar project because the near-constant

presence of people sleeping in adjacent public areas

proved too great a risk.

Another building manager considers certain

properties “virtually unleasable” due to the same

considerations. That company has had a building in its

portfolio with an 85%-plus vacancy rate for years.

Numerous businesses have already abandoned the

downtown core of cities like Portland. Survey data

document countless lost customers and employees due

to homeless individuals who refuse to vacate nearby

public spaces. Businesses that remain in downtown

areas now foot the cost of additional security measures,

such as reinforced doors, alarm systems, and guards.

Security expenses have grown along with the homeless

population. One BOMA Oregon member, for example,

assumed management of a property in 2008, where a

part-time security guard worked for twenty-nine hours

a week, primarily greeting guests. By 2017, security

services were on the premises forty-nine hours a week,

and that number has now reached sixty-nine hours a

9

week to ensure, among other things, that people do not

sleep in the building’s vestibules. Businesses have also

adapted how they operate—locking down facilities

during business hours, closing earlier, and shifting

staff responsibilities to ensure their physical safety.

Then there are the additional cleanup costs. A

BOMA Oregon member, for example, reports having to

engage cleaning services to clear the perimeter of a

redevelopment property three times a week due to

pervasive encampments there. Over the last two years,

combined additional cleaning and security costs for the

property—which is still not open to tenants—have

totaled more than $45,000. In 2017, another property

owner spent $5705 to clear brush from a popular area

for encampments in order to allow specialized cleaning

crews—for a total of more than $3800—to haul away

needles and human feces. The property owner will

repeat the process this year.

Communities are now forced to manage a startling

volume of dangerous waste. Crews in downtown

Portland cleared 52,048, 51,886, and 55,828

biohazards, in 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively.12 The

needle clean-up counts for the same period were

16,822, 27,787, and 38,394, respectively.13 This year,

without adjusting for seasonal variation, crews are on

12

Downtown Portland, Or. Clean & Safe Dist., Internal Cleaning

Statistics, 2016–2019, available to Counsel; see also Yearly Clean

& Safe Program Statistics, http://cleanandsafepdx.com/cleaningsecurity/yearly-statistics.html. The term ‘biohazard” primarily

consists of human waste.

13

Id.

10

track to remove 54,639 biohazards and 35,872 needles

from the sidewalks and streets.14

Although the prevalence of these waste products

presents clear public-health concerns, the increase of

encampments of homelessness individuals threatens

public safety in still more fundamental ways. Over a

three-year period ended July 28, 2019, Portland Fire &

Rescue “responded to a total of 1170 homeless-related

fires”—on average, more than one response per day.15

People experiencing homelessness need heat to keep

warm and cook. But open flames near tarps, tents, and

other belongings made from synthetic materials

endanger not only those who reside in encampments

but also nearby structures and their occupants.16

The members of BOMA Oregon are concerned with

more than the profitability of their commercial

properties. Local governments need certainty that they

can regulate activities that threaten the health and

safety of the entire community.

14

Id.

15

Brittany Falkers, Portland Fire & Rescue Has Responded to

More Than 1000 Homeless-Related Fires in Last 3 Years, KGW

(July 30, 2019), https://bit.ly/2ladKNj.

16

For example, on December 6, 2016, a malfunctioning camp stove

sparked a fire in a long-term encampment near Legacy Emmanuel

Medical Center, according to Portland Fire & Rescue. Although no

one was injured, the blaze damaged nearby buildings, including a

law office. Everton Bailey Jr., Malfunctioning Stove Sparks Fire,

Burning Portland Homeless Camp, Neighboring House (Oregon

Live Posted Dec. 6, 2016; Updated Jan. 9, 2019),

https://bit.ly/2laj4A8.

11

III.

MARTIN PLACES BOMA OREGON

MEMBERS IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION.

What if Judge Smith is correct that the “panel’s

decision effectively allows homeless individuals to sleep

and live wherever they wish on most public property”?

Martin, 920 F.3d at 596 (dissenting from denial of

rehearing en banc). Some police departments have

already backed away from enforcing public camping

ordinances as a direct result of Martin.17

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

recently certified a class seeking a declaration that the

City of Grants Pass’s prohibitions on camping in public

areas are unconstitutional. See Blake v. City of Grants

Pass, No. 18-cv-01823, 2019 WL 3717800, at *7 (D. Or.

Aug. 7, 2019). In part, the subject ordinances provide

that “any person found in violation . . . may be

immediately removed from the premises.” Id. at *2.

Property and business owners do not have the legal

authority to remove individuals from the sidewalks

abutting their property—nor is it advisable for them to

engage in self-help—no matter the hazard they pose.

Martin has placed owners and lessees in an

untenable position between a protected group and

17

The Portland Police Bureau announced that “[i]n light [of] the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling

regarding Martin v. City of Boise, [it] is not citing people for

[violations of Portland City Code] 14A.50.020,” the public-camping

ordinance. Maggie Vespa, Portland Police Will Not Cite Homeless

for Sleeping on Streets, Citing Court Ruling, KGW (Sept. 7, 2018),

https://bit.ly/2mavRCV. Granted, the police had enforced that

provision infrequently, but the other repercussions of Martin

cannot be overlooked.

12

ordinances requiring maintenance of the areas

surrounding their property. Oregon law allows

municipalities to shift liability to a “property owner for

injuries sustained as a result of the owner’s failure to

maintain” adjacent public areas. See Sims v. Besaw’s

Cafe, 997 P.2d 201, 209 (Or. Ct. App. 2000); see also

Marsh v. McLaughlin, 309 P.2d 188 (Or. 1957); Olson

v. Chuck, 259 P.2 128 (Or. 1953). A number of cities,

including Portland and Eugene, have enacted

ordinances that do just that. See Portland City Code

§ 17.28.020(A); Eugene City Code § 7.375(2) & (3).

Many of these ordinances can be read to require more

than keeping sidewalks in good repair. In the state

capital, Salem, “[t]he owners, lessees, and occupants [of

property abutting any sidewalk are] liable to any

person suffering bodily injuries or property damage as

a result of any breach of a duty” to “keep such sidewalk

clean and clear of . . . obstructions for the safe use of

the public at all times.” Salem Code of Ordinances

§ 78.220(a) & (b) (emphasis added); see also Harris v.

Sanders, 919 P.2d 512, 515 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)

(allowing jury to decide whether landowner had failed

to maintain public sidewalk free of “encumbrances . . .

or other similar conditions” by not clearing “brown, wet

and ‘mushy-like’” leaves plaintiff allegedly slipped on).

A person camping on the sidewalk or on the public

area separating the sidewalk and the road (variously

known as the curb strip, hellstrip, and grassplot,

among other things) presents a significant hazard to

pedestrians and individuals who rely on mobility

devices for transportation. Could property owners face

liability if someone were to trip over discarded

bedding? Slip-and-fall injuries were plainly the

13

primary concern motivating enactment of such

ordinances. Nevertheless, as Judge Smith noted,

individuals living on the streets engage in other

“involuntary conduct” and “life-sustaining activities” on

adjacent property for which owners could be held

responsible.

Suppose a property owner is unable to clean up an

encampment on a sidewalk abutting her building, and

a passerby were to suffer an injury or contract an

illness due to human-waste discharge. Could a property

owner be subject to liability for not maintaining the

right of way in a “clean and clear” condition? This

hypothetical situation is not far-fetched. Beaverton

municipal ordinances, for example, do not limit

property-owner exposure to the risks associated with

common slipping hazards, like snow and ice; rather,

property owners can be subject to liability for allowing

adjacent public property to exist “in such condition as

to present an unreasonable risk of danger to persons or

property . . . for all claims arising from that condition.”

Beaverton City Code § 5.05.018(D) (emphasis added).

***

Invalidating public-health and -safety ordinances

does not help the homeless. Moreover, the limitations

Martin places on law-enforcement officials diminishes

their opportunity and leverage to direct the homeless

to the services they need. The decision is ill-conceived

and fails to consider the potential social and legal

ramifications of its holding and underlying logic.

14

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

OWEN BLANK

Counsel of Record

MICHAEL WILLES

TIMOTHY WRIGHT

TONKON TORP LLP

888 SW Fifth Avenue

Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97204

(503) 221-1440

owen.blank@tonkon.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae