The Carson City Board of Supervisors approved the first reading of a new ordinance which would criminalize sitting, lying, and sleeping in any public space. District Attorney Garrit Pruyt said that, contrary to public discourse, the ordinance does not “criminalize poverty.”
The first reading was approved with a few suggested language changes.
The board met on Thursday and discussed the proposed ordinance which has been in the works since August 2024 after the Grants Pass ruling, which reversed a previous ruling making it illegal for municipalities to arrest or fine unsheltered individuals for sleeping outside.
The portion of the suggested changes that resulted in the most public concern is 8.03.080:
Other portions of the ordinance, which can be read in its entirety at the bottom of this page, include sections against camping or sleeping in public, which also constitutes a misdemeanor, and sets provisions on how and when city officials can remove a person’s campsite and their personal property.
As we discussed in our previous deep dive on this ordinance, Carson City already has multiple ordinances enacted in the 1980s which prohibit lying and sleeping in public; camping; building fires; littering; remaining in parks after closing; placing objects or vehicles on sidewalks or highways; and sleeping in vehicles.
According to District Attorney Garrit Pruyt, this ordinance does not criminalize the status of being homeless, which would be unconstitutional, but it “criminalizes conduct.” It also adds definitions to previous ordinances that did not have clarity on what actions exactly were prohibited, such as camping.
He said that contrary to the discourse he’d read online or been sent personally by the public, this ordinance does not “criminalize poverty,” and said he wanted to dispel some concerns.
“This ordinance does not criminalize poverty, it does not criminalize the sitting on park benches, it does not criminalize the reading and sitting and using our libraries, it does not criminalize falling asleep in parks, it does not criminalize taking a rest during a bike ride, it does not criminalize relaxing in the downtown area, utilizing the benches or any of those things it simply does not do those things.”
He said that there is a clause within the ordinance that states that the law won’t be applied to conduct that is “normally associated with a lawful and intended use of the public place.”
“Benches are there for sitting … benches are not for camping,” Pruyt said. “They’re there to be used by all to prevent the de facto privatization of public areas meant for all being used by one for a purpose that was not intended by the city.”
He said as that clause is written, it prevents any type of “hypothetical overreach” that he believes many people are concerned with, and that the potential fine is up to $1,000, but that doesn’t mean that the judge has to impose that amount of fine — or any fine at all.
“In my almost 10 years prosecuting crimes here, in crimes where persons were found to continually be sleeping on the sidewalk or other areas impeding access … I can’t recall a time when a judge has imposed the fine. What I have seen is the judge place conditions directing the person to services. If a person refuses to comply, I have seen jail time imposed in limited cases, but generally that’s after community service has been exhausted, probation has been exhausted, and all the other things to try and help the person get back on track and get where they need to go. But again that comes down to the discretion of the court so there is no mandate for $1,000 fines.”
However, he said what constitutes “normal or reasonable” is up to the discretion of law enforcement personnel, the DAs office, and the courts.
Each person has a choice they can make: they can avail themselves to those services, … but if they choose not to, it is not incumbent upon this community to tolerate an action that otherwise inhibits the peaceful enjoyment of the public areas funded by the taxpayers.
Enforcement up to Discretion
Pruyt said that he has been asked who decides what a lawful, normal and intended use is to which he answered: the people of Carson City.
Pruyt said that the people of the community decide through voting in their elected officials, including the District Attorney, the Judges, and the Sheriff.
He said that laws do not list every permissible action in every setting, and that there are multiple layers of review that guide enforcement of these laws, which includes the discretion of law enforcement officers, the district attorney’s office, and finally, the courts.
If an individual is sleeping on a park bench, for example, a law enforcement officer must first decide if the conduct constitutes being outside the normal, intended use of a public space.
He said as to how they decide what is a normal use, Pruyt said, “I’m sure they will receive guidance from the Sheriff, who has an elected office within this county, which is subject to the will and desires of the people.”
He said if an arrest is made, it would then be passed to the office of the district attorney, who would review it separately to determine whether it can be proved that the use of the public space was not an intended or normal use.
He said if anything were to move on from the DA’s office, it would go to the justice court, “again, another separate elected individual,” who would be able to review it and determine if it fits “within the statutory construction and goal of the community.”
If an individual appealed the ruling of the justice court, it would then continue to the district court, “yet another position within Carson City,” Pruyt added, “who would evaluate that lawful and intended use.”
Pruyt said this is no different than many other laws that use discretion within the state of Nevada, such as self-defense laws, which contain a variety of definitions that determine what constitutes something as reasonable or not.
“The way that this statute is written is to function in the exact same way as the other laws within this state,” Pruyt said. “There’s a great deal of discretion that is involved here. Having worked with our sheriff’s department for almost ten years now … I have seen our deputies work diligently to help people get services, but at the end of the day, sometimes people do not want to avail themselves of those services and this is where these types of laws come in.”
However, several members of the public contested the idea that the ordinance does not criminalize poverty, and argued that it can be used for it, even if the intention of creating it isn’t to do so.
They argued that because the ordinance criminalizes the “unintended” use of public spaces, but unsheltered individuals have nowhere else to go, leaving what constitutes an intended use up to discretion alone could lead to abuse depending on the opinions of the arresting law enforcement agent.
Even if a fine of up to $1,000 or six months in jail is not ultimately imposed, simply being arrested or cited could have a significant impact on individuals trying to make it into housing according to advocates.
Homeless Advocates oppose ordinance
Do you know how hard it is to get a house when you’ve just been in jail? Do you know how hard it is to get services when you have a misdemeanor, or any charge period? There has to be services in order to force folks into them.
Social Worker Molly McGregor said that “this is a cart-horse issue, because we don’t have the services to push people into that we’re criminalizing them for, right? We don’t have a shelter in place for them to go, so we are literally criminalizing people for having nowhere to go.”
McGregor said she works with a significant number of families who cannot afford the wait time needed to access the services the city offers, and they can’t afford the housing costs in the area.
“Even the low income and affordable housing services that I know this board has worked really hard to put in place — wait times are absolutely astronomical. I’ve had several families living in tents on the streets, in RVs, and we’re getting them into services, we’re getting them on wait lists, but there’s literally nowhere for them to go.”
McGregor said that for most of the families she works with, substance use is not an issue, and that they are simply trying to survive and become stable.
“The bottom line is, we have citizens here who are hurting,” McGregor said. “I understand the discretion and the “up to” a $1,000 fine, but the fact that that can happen — do you know how hard it is to get a house when you’ve just been in jail? Do you know how hard it is to get services when you have a misdemeanor, or any charge period? There has to be services in order to force folks into them.”
Ed Choklek, a volunteer with a number of local and national organizations to prevent homelessness, said there have been many studies over the past ten years showing that ordinances such as the one proposed do not help end homelessness.
“They do not reduce homelessness, they do not help the homeless, they hurt them. This is what the research is showing.”
He said that San Diego just reversed their own ordinances because “They figured out that they lost $30 million enforcing these ordinances because nobody was paying fines, and yet they had to put people in jail.”
Lynn Berggren, a volunteer of NOTS, said she had gotten off her shift with the warming shelter only 45 minutes before, and that there were 59 people who slept in the temporary shelter overnight — a shelter which will be ending for the season shortly.
They’re not criminals, and they don’t have anywhere else to go. It’s an issue that the community needs to address, and not just with our churches and our volunteers
“In ten days, our warming center ends,” she said. “That’s going to be 59 people on the street. So, if they sleep in the park, are we going to arrest all of those people? They’re not criminals, and they don’t have anywhere else to go. It’s an issue that the community needs to address, and not just with our churches and our volunteers, because I can tell you at the end of five months [at NOTS], our volunteers are exhausted.”
During the presentation, Pruyt noted that the ordinance does not prevent the use of services that are available within the community for those who find themselves without shelter.
“Carson City is an excellent community that provides a myriad of resources to all those persons,” Pruyt said. “There is nothing in this ordinance that prevents people from seeking those services today, tomorrow, or any other day of the week, so that they can place themselves in a better position and not suffer the issues that are currently plaguing them in their life.”
Pruyt said he would “much prefer” that individuals who find themselves without housing, or suffering from a mental illness, or drug addiction, or “anything else that has put them in a place where life has become very difficult” seek services, but if they choose not to, the city needs to have some manner of enforcement.
“But at the end of the day, each person has a choice that they can make: they can avail themselves to those services – and I do hope they do – or they cannot, but if they choose not to, it is not incumbent upon this community to tolerate an action that otherwise inhibits the peaceful enjoyment of use of the public areas that are funded by the taxpayers of this community and this is where these portions and these types of laws come into play.”
Board Discussion
Throughout the discussion, supervisors asked Pruyt for clarifications on the ordinance, and suggested possible changes.
Frankly, I really don’t care if somebody’s sleeping on a park bench or sitting down or lying down — that’s not something that I find is egregious to the point that it should create an action by law enforcement.
Supervisor Lisa Schuette thanked Pruyt for his presentation, and said she wanted to revisit that “the objective of [this ordinance] is to reduce the behaviors that encumber, interfere with, and impede access to and from public property. It’s not about making homelessness illegal. It is to really allow proper public property to be used as intended by everyone.”
She suggested adding the qualifier of “from sunset to 8 a.m.” to the Parks and Recreation ordinance code change relating to sleeping in public parks and open space for clarity:
“First statement it could read lying down sleeping or lodging in public park or open space prohibited between sunset and 8 a.m except in specific areas designed for such purpose,” Schuette said. “I understand it’s stated in the next statement, but I think it just makes it clearer right from the start.”
Board Counsel Dan Yu said this was a possibility, but also added that an easier way to achieve the same goal without adding too much length would be to simply remove the word “prohibited,” which would add the clarity.
Therefore, the new title under Title 13: Parks and Recreation ordinances would read: 13.02.190 – Lying down, sleeping or lodging in public park or open space.
The board approved this change.
Supervisor Maurice White said that when it comes to 8.03.080, he would like an amendment to the language that indicates you can’t sit or lie down in a manner that interferes with the public right of way, but that he does not believe prohibiting people from sitting on or sleeping on benches requires law enforcement.
“Frankly, I really don’t care if somebody’s sleeping on a park bench or sitting down or lying down — that’s not something that I find is egregious to the point that it should create an action by law enforcement,” White said. “I think we need some language that says you can’t be encumbering the public right of way while you’re involved in sitting, lying down, or sleeping.”
Pruyt said that the changes could be made, but that it would alter the enforcement significantly.
“If you add the while … the questions then become: the areas off to the side, is that specifically encumbering, is that otherwise still affecting the use?” Pruyt said. “It greatly restricts the authorized officials ability to address those issues. … I do fear that if that is added, that will limit the ability of enforcement as it’s currently drafted, to address a myriad of different issues – and I can come up with them all – that law enforcement or other authorized officials will encounter.”
However, Pruyt said if that was the board’s direction, those changes could be made.
White also said there needs to be clarity added on the portion of the ordinance regarding section 8.03.100 which pertains to the disposal of property, which states “in any manner reasonable and customary for the disposal of such property.”
“Can you maybe give some definition or some idea what that really means?” White said.
Pruyt said, “It’s written out as reasonable and customary understanding that whoever the authorized official is is going to encounter vast types of property so reasonable disposal for something say like a needle is for a sharps container it’s going to have its own customary method of disposal reasonable disposal for an item that may be contaminated with drugs is going to have its own manner of disposal,” etc.
He said individuals who are tasked with disposal are trained on how to safely dispose of a variety of items through standards set by state law.
Supervisor Curt Horton said that he appreciates the detail that has gone into the ordinance, and that he believes the ordinance as written, with the exceptions noted, is “more than sufficient,” and that he has “great confidence in our law enforcement and the judgement they exercise.”
This ordinance brings balance, and that’s really what it’s all about: you’re balancing different needs of different groups
Mayor Lori Bagwell said she believes this ordinance brings balance to the needs of all the city’s residents.
“That’s really what it’s all about: balancing different needs of different groups,” she said. “We can’t always all agree on what the best answer is for everyone, but I think this proposal here does a better job than the existing rules to help those that might be in need by requiring a referral for an agency, and … protecting their [property]. None of that existed in the current rules that we have.”
She said after hearing the discussions, she hopes that the community will realize the ordinance was created to protect both parties – the residents and the unsheltered individuals of Carson City.
“We as a board face a lot of [comments] from the general public saying ‘I want to be able to use the library and feel safe, I want to use the swimming pool,’ and I think this ordinance does that for both parties … what we’ve done here is [try] to protect the general public to be able to access and utilize their public dollar use items, but also put in some protections that were not in the existing rules for those that find themselves in different situations.”
Following public comment, Schuette said that the concerns brought up were heartfelt, and that they as a board are facing a dilemma to balance the needs of the community. She said there are conflicting experiences between businesses in the community, as well as individuals who are “trying to go from point a to point b and feel that it’s a more difficult journey, or that they just don’t feel comfortable using the library or different businesses or amenities in Carson, and that’s difficult.”
She said that the million dollar question is, “where do they go?”
However, she said that she does not believe this ordinance creates additional barriers, because those barriers already exist.
“We don’t have a shelter, we do have several amazing non-profits and incredible volunteers who are giving their time and their love and their money and their energy and their sleep to help those in need,” Schuette said. “I think that the direction that we as a community need to go to is: continue to build those relationships, continue to build those resources and help people in need access services.”
The board unanimously approved the first reading of the ordinance with the suggestions mentioned above, and afterwards, Bagwell thanked the non-profits who had attended the meeting for their work.
“You guys are tremendous and this community is lucky to have all of you,” Bagwell said. “We really, really are and I really want to stress something. This board is very compassionate about wanting to help and utilizing dollars to do good works in the community, and we couldn’t do it without the help of all of you volunteers.”
The full proposed first draft reading of the ordinance can be viewed below:
