Judge Hands Protection to Homeless in Sweep Ruling : Law: Street people gained clout when crackdown was ruled illegal in court, but law enforcement lost a weapon.

A court ruling last week that produced a stinging rebuke of Santa Ana police tactics targeting street people represents new-found legal and political clout for Orange County’s once-faceless homeless population, legal experts say.

Municipal Judge B. Tam Nomoto’s ruling, which called the city’s Civic Center sweep discriminatory and illegal, establishes the homeless as a protected class of people who cannot be treated as “secondary citizens.”

Perhaps more important, the case brought together some of the county’s best legal minds--along with the resources and prestige of several lofty law firms, all at no charge--on the side of the homeless.

Legal observers agree that the homeless gained a new measure of protection, while Santa Ana and other cities contemplating similar tactics lost a weapon in their efforts to regulate street people.

“This case has given courage” to the homeless, said Jennifer J. King, former president of the Orange County Bar Assn. “Most of them could have run away as soon as this case came before the court. But they didn’t run. They were determined to fight back.”

Edmond M. Connor, whose firm Morrison & Foerster provided seven defense attorneys, added: “There’s a cry out there among the homeless and other people without help for more legal aid. This sends a message to big firms and small offices that it’s worth the effort to help those in need.”

The ruling stemmed from a sweep conducted Aug. 15 at the Civic Center, in which more than 60 people were rounded up for offenses ranging from littering to jaywalking to pulling leaves from a tree. They were taken to nearby Santa Ana Stadium, marked on their arms with identifying numbers and shackled to benches for several hours, then were cited and released.

Police asserted that the roundup was prompted by many complaints and a growing concern about crime at the Civic Center.

Judge Nomoto criticized the way the sweep was conducted, however, noting that officers specifically targeted the homeless, arresting them for extremely petty violations while declining to apprehend well-dressed people who could be seen committing the same kinds of violations.

In Santa Ana’s moves against the homeless, many observers see issues that will probably confront nearly every county community as the local indigent population swells above 10,000 men, women and children.

Despite the perception that most homeless are transients, estimates from social providers are that 41% have lived in the county 10 years or more and that a quarter of the homeless have been on the streets for a year or more.

Nomoto, in her ruling, expressed sympathy for the plight of Santa Ana officials but curtly rejected the argument that their dilemma justified their actions against the homeless.

“The law has ever been vigilant against such cold indifference towards discrimination and the evils that it could engender,” she wrote.

Homeless advocates were cautious in appraising the ruling’s wider impact, but most agreed that any attempt by cities to single out the homeless would now result in a swift legal response.

“Cities may not appreciate the message in this ruling right away,” said Jean Forbath, chairwoman of the County Human Relations Commission, “but I think it’s wonderful that we have a group like the Poverty Law Center to ride herd on them,” referring to one defense group.

While Forbath and others said they are heartened by Nomoto’s ruling, they also acknowledged that it does not solve the broader problem: The 22 homeless people who were jubilant in their court victory are back on the street, and cities with often-legitimate complaints have no clearer sense of how to deal with them.

“It’s a dilemma that hasn’t yet had an easy answer,” Costa Mesa Mayor Mary Hornbuckle said.

Many homeless advocates said the ruling may help to refocus the issue away from blame and onto its root causes.

Susan Oakson, coordinator of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, said: “Clearly, homelessness is a community-wide issue, and effective solutions are ones that address the lack of housing, treatment for substance abuse, mental health problems and job counseling.”

Oakson also noted that while it is understandable for people to want to live and work in a secure environment, the homeless themselves are often victims of crime, yet too afraid to speak up for fear of inviting even more trouble.

However, Santa Ana City Councilman John Acosta asserted that he is continually fielding complaints about the homeless.

“The point was lost that these people were committing crimes,” he said. “We didn’t arrest them because they were homeless. We cited them because they were breaking the law.”

Acosta said he has no hesitation in supporting future police actions against crime, even if it means arresting more homeless.

But defense attorneys contend that Nomoto’s ruling will move cities to re-evaluate restrictive policies.

“It’s a very important decision in that it sends a message to other cities that targeting and harassing the homeless is not the way to solve the homeless problem,” said Richard Alan Rothschild, director of litigation for the Western Center on Law & Poverty in Los Angeles.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF HOMELESS IN O.C. Median Age: 32 Gender: Men: 66% Women: 34% Race: Anglo: 61% Black: 17% Latino: 16% Native American: 3% Asian: 1% Marital Status: Single: 48% Married: 17% Divorced: 20% Education: High School Grad: 63% Some College: 25% Degree: 9% Employment: Unemployed: 67% Disabled: 14% Working part time or full time: 11% Length of Time Homeless: One Month: 41% One Year: 13% Two Years: 12% Three Years: 16% Reasons Became Homeless: Lost a Job: 50% Unaffordable Housing: 52% Family Problems: 20% Eviction: 29% Note: Due to the survey format, figures in many categories do not equal 100%. Source: Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force’s February, 1990, survey of 1,974 homeless men, women and children who sought services from 16 county agencies and charities.