³ÉÈËXÕ¾

It’s a win for cities like Lacey, trying to end RV encampments in parking lots and streets.

Long-term parking of a Recreational Vehicle in the city’s lots is still not allowed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The case was brought by Jack Potter, who lives in his vehicle. He challenged the constitutionality of the Lacey’s RV parking and permitting ordinances.

The Court ruled that everyone must follow parking laws and that long-term RV parking should be no exception even if the owner claims it’s their residence.

Potter, who parked his unmotorized 23-foot travel trailer in the City Hall parking lot, argued that regulations infringed on his constitutional rights. However, the Court ruled that the ordinances are valid exercises of the city’s authority.

Avoid the ‘Doom Loop’: New rule makes it easier to cancel subscriptions

In his lawsuit, Potter claimed that the Lacey’s RV Parking Ordinance and its accompanying Permitting Ordinance violated his right to intrastate travel under both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington State Constitution. He was cited and threatened with the impoundment of his trailer for violating the RV Parking Ordinance, which prohibits long-term RV parking in city lots.

The court held that Potter could challenge the RV Parking Ordinance but not the Permitting Ordinance. He had not applied for nor intended to apply for a permit. The court noted that while Potter could challenge the parking ordinance, his broader arguments failed on constitutional grounds.

Key Constitutional claims dismissed

In his appeal, Potter argued that the RV Parking Ordinance infringed on his right to intrastate travel under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court found that the city’s ordinance, which prohibits individuals from residing indefinitely in RVs in public lots, was a reasonable restriction, falling under the city’s police powers to regulate public spaces and maintain accessibility.

In addition, the Washington Supreme Court, when asked to weigh in, similarly concluded that the ordinance did not violate Potter’s state constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims rejected

Potter also challenged the threatened impoundment of his trailer as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable seizures.

The court, however, sided with the city, ruling that the impoundment was justified under the “community caretaking” exception. The ordinance was designed to ensure that city parking lots remained accessible for business use, which the court deemed a valid public interest.

All Over The Map: Jackson Street Jazz Trail and sweet melodies among the sour notes

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Potter’s argument that the ordinance violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The court found that the $35 fine for violating the ordinance was not “grossly disproportionate” to the offense and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Citing recent precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the city’s enforcement measures were appropriate and proportional.

Conclusion

The ruling is a significant affirmation of municipalities’ authority to regulate the use of public spaces, particularly in light of the growing number of individuals using vehicles as shelter.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision reinforces the principle that while local governments must respect constitutional rights, they also have the power to regulate parking and land use for the greater public good.

Bill Kaczaraba is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here. Follow Bill on X, formerly known as Twitter, and email him here.Ìý