861 N.W.2d 878
Iowa Ct. App.2014Background
- Homeless individuals (appellees) established a campsite under the Martin Luther King Jr. bridge in Des Moines in March 2012, using tents and makeshift shelters to sleep and store belongings.
- Des Moines amended its municipal code in December 2012 to expressly include tents and similar items as "encroachments." The City posted notices in January 2013 ordering removal; the occupants timely appealed to an administrative hearing officer.
- At the administrative hearing, the City presented evidence of fire and safety hazards, complaints from trail users, and difficulties for emergency responders; the City argued removal was necessary for public safety.
- Appellees, represented by Iowa Legal Aid, invoked the private necessity defense, arguing lack of available or acceptable alternatives (shelter capacity issues, unwillingness to give up possessions) and imminent harm from winter exposure.
- The hearing officer ruled for appellees, concluding necessity applied; the district court upheld that ruling on certiorari review. The City appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private necessity justified remaining on City property | Necessity inapplicable: no imminent emergency when encroachments were erected; public safety risks outweigh claimed harm | Necessity applies: cold weather, shelter overcrowding, and lack of alternatives made remaining reasonably necessary to avoid serious harm | Reversed: necessity not supported by substantial evidence; no emergency justifying encroachments |
| Whether the hearing officer’s decision was supported by substantial evidence | Decision lacked substantial evidence and misapplied law | Decision was supported by Walton and Restatement §197; shelter was inadequate during cold snap | Reversed: evidence did not reasonably support defense given fire/safety hazards and available shelter |
| Scope of relief under certiorari review | District court should annul hearing officer’s decision and permit removal of encroachments | Appellees argued limited relief and continued applicability of necessity | Court remanded with direction to sustain writ; limited to encroachments as defined by municipal code |
| Whether public-policy concerns (homelessness) alter legal rule | City: policy arguments don’t excuse unlawful encroachments | Appellees: public-policy and survival needs justify necessity defense | Court: sympathetic but declines to alter law; public policy not a substitute for legal elements of necessity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walton, 311 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 1981) (framework for necessity: imminent threat and lack of alternatives)
- Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (criminal trespass cases invoking necessity by homeless persons)
- In re Eichhorn, 69 Cal. App. 4th 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (necessity instruction for homeless defendant sleeping in public when shelters were full)
- Benamon v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 689 N.E.2d 366 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (declining necessity where less dangerous alternatives available)