46 F.4th 787
9th Cir.2022Background
- Lacey adopted an RV Parking Ordinance limiting parking of RVs/trailers on public streets/parking lots to four hours in any 24‑hour period, with limited loading/unloading and permit exceptions.
- The City created separate permit tracks for residents (temporary visitor permits) and non‑residents (permits limited to designated areas and subject to background checks); no “safe lot” for non‑residents has ever been designated.
- Jack Potter lived in a travel trailer hitched to his truck and parked in Lacey City Hall lot; after citation and threat of impoundment he left Lacey and sued claiming violations of federal and Washington constitutional rights (Fourth, Eighth, and intrastate travel claims).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City on all claims; Potter appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit panel concluded Washington law is unsettled on whether a right to intrastate travel exists under the Washington Constitution (Washington cases recognize a federal intrastate‑travel right but not a state‑law one), held that the state‑law question is potentially outcome‑determinative, and certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court; further proceedings were stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Washington law protect a right to intrastate travel? | Potter: Washington should recognize an intrastate travel right under state law (relying on Eggert and Macias). | Lacey: Washington has not recognized such a state constitutional right and certification is unnecessary. | Ninth Circuit: Question unsettled and potentially outcome‑determinative — certified to the Washington Supreme Court; proceedings stayed. |
| If Washington recognizes intrastate travel right, does the RV ordinance violate it? | Potter: Ordinance effectively bars living in RVs on public property and thus infringes intrastate travel/residence rights. | Lacey: Ordinance regulates parking, not movement or residency, and treats residents/nonresidents uniformly; no infringement. | Certified with first question to Washington Supreme Court; Ninth Circuit did not resolve on merits. |
| Facial Fourth Amendment challenge (impoundment/seizure) | Potter: Ordinance authorizes impoundment and thus facially violates the Fourth Amendment. | Lacey: Impoundment authorized as standard caretaking/statutory police power; many parking laws allow seizure/impoundment. | Not finally decided by Ninth Circuit (case stayed); panel majority indicated that because at least one constitutional application exists, a facial Fourth Amendment invalidation is unlikely. |
| Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment / fines) | Potter: Ordinance punishes homelessness and imposes unconstitutional penalties. | Lacey: Ordinance imposes civil penalties/impoundment, not criminal punishment; Eighth Amendment inapplicable post‑conviction rule and Martin v. Boise framework control. | Not decided by Ninth Circuit (case stayed); dissent would reject the Eighth Amendment challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eggert v. City of Seattle, 505 P.2d 801 (Wash. 1973) (Washington Supreme Court recognized intrastate‑travel right but did so under U.S. constitutional authority).
- Macias v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 668 P.2d 1278 (Wash. 1983) (addressed interstate travel and state privileges/immunities but did not establish a Washington intrastate‑travel doctrine).
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (Supreme Court articulation of components of the right to interstate travel).
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015) (facial‑challenge standard: law must be unconstitutional in all applications).
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (automobile impoundment as a seizure and community‑caretaking rationale).
- Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005) (community caretaking doctrine applied to vehicle impoundments).
- Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) (Eighth Amendment limits on criminalizing sleeping on public property when no shelter is available).
- Cuviello v. City of Vallejo, 944 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2019) (canon of avoiding federal constitutional adjudication when adequate state grounds exist).