Part of an Everett law prohibiting camping or even spreading out a sleeping bag on the grass of a city park has been declared unconstitutional by a Snohomish County Superior Court judge.
The law, originally passed in the 1990s, prohibits “use of camp paraphernalia” in city parks, on streets and on other publicly owned property. The prohibited items include cots, beds, sleeping bags, hammocks and cooking facilities not owned by the city, according to the code.
Judge Anita Farris found the phrase unconstitutionally vague and too broad. She compared it to vagrancy laws that draw no distinction between harmful conduct and innocent activities.
The ruling could have an effect elsewhere. At least two other Snohomish County communities, Marysville and Lynnwood, have nearly identical anti-camping ordinances.
In a verbal ruling issued last week, Farris said someone who wraps a child in a sleeping bag in a city park or even while driving on a city street technically could be in violation of the law.
The ordinance, taken literally, also would prohibit someone from bringing a Coleman camp stove to a park to heat up beans to go with hot dogs cooked on a park grill.
“I think laws like this are ugly and mean-spirited,” said John Ewers, an Everett defense attorney who raised the issue in defense of a client. “In my mind, ordinances like this makes it illegal to be homeless.”
His client was caught sleeping in a motor home on a city street with power and telephone cables running to a north Everett motel. The 20-year-old Everett man, a convicted felon, was arrested because he illegally had a pistol in the motor home.
Ewers tried to get the gun removed as evidence, claiming the whole camping law was unconstitutional.
Farris said other sections of the law apply to Ewers’ client. Just the section about camp paraphernalia is illegal, she said.
Nonetheless, the law has the legitimate intent to prevent prolonged stays or overnight camping on public property, “and I think that’s in everyone’s best interest,” city prosecutor Laura Van Slyck said.
The city may have to go back to the drawing board “to make sure the language of the ordinance is accurate with respect to the intent of the ordinance,” Van Slyck said.
The law is not intended to apply just to homeless people, said Van Slyck, who added that she hasn’t decided whether the city will appeal the ruling. Farris’ oral ruling last week hasn’t been put in writing for a court order for her to sign. Van Slyck wants to see the written order before making any decisions, she said.
Everett police Capt. Bill Deckard disputes any “mean-spirited” intent.
“The law in the municipal code is not intended to single out any one segment” of the community, Deckard said. “It’s not mean-spirited.”
In addition, police are given discretion to take the total circumstances of a situation into account. A family grilling on a camp stove in a city park wouldn’t be bothered, Deckard said. But a person with a tent and sleeping bag and a line out for drying clothes would draw a lot more attention from police, he added.
Ewers acknowledges that the city has a legitimate reason to impose restrictions, but it could have gone about it differently, he said.
“I think you could have a better-written ordinance that applies … restrictions that are reasonable,” Ewers said. “This law seeks to solve a problem with a butcher cleaver when in reality the problem needs to be solved with a surgical scalpel.”
Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
