FROM THE STORY: Local and national legal experts are questioning whether Governor Dan McKee has the authority to evict homeless people sleeping on the grounds of the Rhode Island State House, which is public property.

On Dec. 7 the people, who have been sleeping outside in tents, were given 48 hours to vacate the State House grounds or face fines or arrest. According to notices handed out at the time, the state promised to provide them with a bed in an emergency shelter and transportation from the State House.

But Rhode Island currently has a severe shortage of shelter beds for people who are homeless. And as the 9 a.m. deadline for eviction came and went on Dec. 9, it was still unclear where, exactly, the state was proposing to place those who had been camping on State House grounds. By noon on Dec. 9, McKee spokesman Matthew Sheaff that there were “less than 10″ remaining members of the encampment, though there were still about 25 tents set up outside the State House

“If there aren’t enough available shelter beds, then you can’t criminally punish someone from taking care of their basic rights like sleeping and sheltering,” Eric Tars, the legal director of the National Homelessness Law Center in Washington D.C., said in an interview with the Globe. “There doesn’t seem like there are beds available, let alone accessible.”

On Monday, when questioned by members of the press at an unrelated event, McKee said the state was short “close to 200 shelter beds.” But according to data provided by the Rhode Island Coalition to End Homelessness, as of Nov. 30 there were approximately 615 people, including children, living in places not meant for habitation while they waited for spaces in shelters.

Tars noted that in Martin v. Boise, a case the center took on in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court decided that unhoused individuals could not be punished for sleeping on public property if there were a lack of alternatives. Criminal and civil penalties used to punish those who are unhoused for existing in public spaces with nowhere else to go can be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which refers to cruel and unusual punishment.

READ MORE IN THE STORY.

They are trespassing and refuse to go to a shelter. Yes, he can have them removed.

I love how they place their answer as if there is no other possible location to pitch their tent but the state house.

Note that shelter space is extremely limited and some not even taking more people right now. Plus homeless encampments elsewhere are regularly scattered by police. The state house was obviously a bit of a publicity stunt but the idea was to make it visible and make people do something about it if they have them removed.

I had to navigate homeless programs last year and it was a nightmare and showed how unequipped we are in dealing with the problem. And it's only gotten worse since.

SO here's something that should be reported on.... is there anyone that actually truthfully knows WHO those tenters are???

like if someone (not me, you first...) went over to them and asked them "hey, who are you? how did you get here?"... that could be a seriously story in the-call, or the valley-breeze, or whatever. a full story about WHY and HOW you become so homeless that you choose to live in a tent on solid granite steps in the snow, in front of the only building in the entire state with the power to make you not live there...

Oh, but if it’s a protest under the First Amendment, you have to analyze it in terms of time, place, and manner restrictions. (Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.)

Counter-point: Why? Functionally it’s no different from them sleeping in the woods or under a bridge on state property, this is just less convenient and worse optics for the people elected to deal with the issue.

I’m ok with that.

What kind of rabbit hole conspiracy theory are you trying to go on here? Aliens put them there

YEAH! Like, do homeless people even exist!?!?!?

If we didn’t tax the first $50,000 of income in this country, this shit wouldn’t be happening everywhere. This country has a tax problem— $50,000 is core income needed to eat and sleep. Why the fuck are those incomes being taxed.

of course,,,

Yes, he can, and he will because he's an authoritarian piece of shit that wants to murder poor people just like the rest of them. Thank every idiot who didn't vote in the primary (most of you reading this sadly) for what he's doing. Liberals are spineless mules who can't bother to Pokemon Go To The Polls, as always.

they're part time protestors, & full time homeless. they don't choose to willingly sleep on the cold-stone-creamery-counter of apartments in a 2nd hand tent. They didn't choose to not have jobs, or lose important family members, or go without health insurance and stable income. Something happened to them. Nobody is telling their story. homelessness is not a conspiracy.

it's a statement in plain view. an email direct to the man in charge that can't be dumped in the spam bucket. it's a tough choice for them, and rather brave too.

there is no room for them. read the story.

if you think there is room, i quadruple-dog-dare you to take one of them by the hand, and walk them to a shelter.

Use the pot taxes to send them to Mars and start colonizing

And screw the law. Rhode Island does not care for it!

go ahead. go uphold it. i dare ya.

I can't wait for Anarchy can you? So exciting. No more having to put up with "protections" and so on. Everyone gets to do what they like. Its going be awesome.

oh go jump off the Crook Point bridge. this is people begging for shelter. they're not robbing mom & pop shops for cash. chill out. they need a place to live.

Hell, no problem, give them your address if they need a place to stay. But don't sit there and say law does not matter so you can get your way. Selfish stupid ideas that a court should absolutely prevent rather than encourage.

i dont think you understand how homelessness happens/works.

Absolutely 100% irrelevant to the law. Again, a stupid, selfish discussion that has no place in law that a shameful excuse for a judge has decided is worthy.

fascist.

Because he’s an elitist like the other knobs on the hill.

Go help them if you’re such a good person people like you are a waste of humanity.

Grown ups are having a civil discussion here, leave the playground barbs where they belong.

> Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.

Good lord I am sick and tired of hearing this. Do they not teach civics anymore? Brandenburg v. Ohio & Hess v. Indiana overturned most of Schenck v. United States.

The fact that this "yelling fire in a crowded theater" myth has continued on well into the information age is a blight on the education system.

Unless the 1A execution/speech in question would "incite imminent lawless action" it is protected speech. The test for what qualified as "imminent lawless action" isn't exactly a cakewalk either. It requires specifics, and actionable statements/plans.

It's terrible that there isn't more places for homeless people

They’re not really when you consider deductions/credits

I would hope so.

Why would I go help them violate the law? I leave that to the useless people.

That's your answer? Why don't you go look up the definition of the word before you use it. I know why, your not a useful member of society....just a bitcher.

government shouldn’t touch it — pass it through immediately… it’s obscene that they tax people before they pay for their basic needs