from this article in the flagstaff newspaper the rulers of the city of flagstaff have clearly declared war on the homeless. Original Article City camping ban aims for discretion By RACHEL PETERSON Sun Staff Reporter 10/06/2005 The new city camping ban will take effect Nov. 3, prohibiting people from sleeping in a public right of way, or on public property, when it appears they're doing so for living accommodations. But the new law may leave much room for interpretation by the Flagstaff police officers, said opponents. Passed 4-3 by the Flagstaff City Council Tuesday, a big concern from opponents is the lack of clarity and room for discretion it gives police officers when addressing campers. Wording that states a violation is "in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting such activities, are in fact using the area for living accommodation purposes" is subjective, said Councilman Al White, who opposed the new law. White had several amendments to help clarify the ordinance and eliminate some of the police discretion, but they were rejected along the same voting lines that approved the law. White's amendments eliminated the term "sleeping activities" from the definition and permitted people to use a vehicle for sleeping in emergency situations or when someone pulls off the interstate for a few hours rest. "It becomes confusing and vague," he said of the language. Councilman Joe Haughey, who voted for the law, said this ordinance "goes to common sense" in determining the spirit of the law from the letter of the law. Haughey said he trusts the police force to go by the spirit of the law. Officer Milt Cruver, who spoke to the council about the ordinance before the vote, said the law is a tool for public safety, and "the first thing that every officer in this department will do is try to assist them." "As a very last result we could use this as a tool to place them into a safe house. That is the jail," he said. But there is no procedure specified in the ordinance for determining who should be assisted and who should be arrested. A violation is a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to $2,500 and six months is jail. The only police limitations written into the ordinance are "no person shall be arrested for a violation of this ordinance unless the person continues to engage in such conduct after warning." That means the person is literally taken into custody, said Ron Kanwischer, assistant city attorney. "On first offense, that person would have to be cited and released, or warned," he said. And if the person was cited, it would rarely be at the maximum level, he added. "Most of the time, you'd be looking at $100. We typically convert that to $5 an hour in community service," he said. "It would be extremely unlikely that anyone would ever get a $2,500 fine for this." Assistant City Attorney James Speed, who drafted the ordinance, said there's a system of checks and balances, in that each charge goes through three levels to determine its validity: The police at the scene, the city attorney's office and the judge. Regardless of the discretion given to officers, Cruver told the council the law is for safety, not increased police authority. "It's not just going out with the hammer and saying, 'You're going to jail,'" he said. "We have absolutely nothing that will help us protect our citizens and the citizens on the street. We've had sexual assaults. We've had homicides. We've had robberies on these individuals." Rachel Peterson can be reached at rpeterson@azdailysun.com or 556-2253.