A Sedona woman with anxiety issues will get a chance to prove she’s entitled to sleep in her car despite a city ordinance that makes it a crime.
In a new ruling Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was wrong for a trial judge to throw out a claim by Sabrina Beram that her condition is a disability as defined by federal law. More to the point, the court said that means she can argue that the city must provide a “reasonable accommodation” — even if it does mean she is technically breaking the law.
Thursday’s decision is significant because the 9th Circuit sets precedent for Arizona. And that could result in cities around the state being unable to enforce similar laws in these kinds of situations.
The unusual case stems from a claim by Beram that she has a severe, chronic, obsessive-compulsive anxiety that can cause her to believe her apartment is unclean.
That, according to court records, can require her to take hours to clean to make the conditions “tolerable.” But when it’s so late she would not have time to sleep, Beram said sleeps in her car in the parking lot of her apartment complex or, when space is unavailable, other public and private spaces in Sedona.
Only thing is that city ordinance makes sleeping in a car a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. And since she has now been warned twice — a precursor under the ordinance before criminal penalties can be imposed — Beram sent a letter to the city asking to be granted an exception.
When that was denied, she had Community Legal Services file suit in federal court on her behalf to get an exception.
Part of that was against her landlord who agreed to let her sleep in her car. But that agreement also said it could be rescinded if the city threatened the landlord who, as a property owner, also is barred by ordinance from letting people sleep in the parking lots.
That, however, still left the question of her personal risk of arrest. Appellate Judge Roopali Desai, writing for the three-judge panel, said federal law is clear.
“A public entity’s failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” she wrote.
The only exception is if making such an accommodation “would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”
Desai also said that the warnings Beram had gotten from police shows that there is a “credible threat of enforcement” of the ordinance against her.
“The officers’ warnings were not mere threats of enforcement: they were the first step of enforcement,” the judge said, noting the requirement for two warnings. “Nor has the city disavowed enforcement against Beram when she sleeps in her car at her apartment because of her disability.”
Desai rejected the city’s claim that Beram’s issue is not with the city and its ordinance but with her landlord.
“This argument ignores that the ordinance criminalizes sleeping on both public and private property,” the judge wrote. “And it prohibits private property owners from allowing someone to sleep in their car on the owner’s property.”
The appellate judges were no more sympathetic to Sedona’s argument that the ADA is not meant to deal with city ordinances and that doing so would impair the city’s ability to protect public safety. Desai said there is no reason to create a distinction between civil and criminal laws and whether they are discriminatory.
“Discrimination under (the ADA) may include the failure to provide reasonable accommodation that would allow a person with a disability to comply with a criminal ordinance,” the judge wrote.
Thursday’s ruling does not end the case but instead gives Beram a chance to make her case before a federal court trial judge. And Desai said it would be at that point that city attorneys could argue that granting Beram’s accommodation would be unreasonable.
