A Legal Battle Over Sleeping in Cars: Sedona Woman Challenges City Ordinance
A recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could have far-reaching implications for city ordinances across Arizona. Sabrina Beram, a resident of Sedona who struggles with anxiety, is at the heart of this pivotal case. Beram argues that her mental health condition necessitates sleeping in her car, which conflicts with a Sedona ordinance that criminalizes such behavior.
The appellate court ruled that Beram’s claim of having a disability under federal law should not have been dismissed by the trial judge. This decision allows her to seek a “reasonable accommodation” from the city to lawfully sleep in her car, despite the ordinance. The court’s decision could set a precedent affecting similar laws throughout Arizona.
Beram’s case is rooted in her claim of severe, chronic, obsessive-compulsive anxiety, which sometimes compels her to spend hours cleaning her apartment to make it livable. When this extends late into the night, she resorts to sleeping in her car, either in her apartment complex’s parking lot or in other public and private areas in Sedona. However, Sedona’s ordinance makes it a misdemeanor, with potential penalties of up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine, for anyone found sleeping in a vehicle.
Despite being warned twice—a necessary step before any legal penalties—Beram’s request for an exception was initially denied by the city. With the help of Community Legal Services, she filed a federal lawsuit seeking to challenge this decision. Although her landlord had agreed to let her sleep in her car, this arrangement could be revoked if the city enforced the ordinance against the property owner.
Writing for the appellate panel, Judge Roopali Desai cited federal law, stating, “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.” Desai emphasized that such accommodations must be made unless they would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or activity.
The court also highlighted the enforcement threat faced by Beram, pointing out that the city’s warnings were not empty threats but steps towards enforcement. “Nor has the city disavowed enforcement against Beram when she sleeps in her car at her apartment because of her disability,” Desai added.
The judges dismissed Sedona’s arguments that the ADA is not applicable to city ordinances, asserting that the failure to provide reasonable accommodation can constitute discrimination under the Act, regardless of whether the law is civil or criminal.
This ruling does not conclude Beram’s case but allows her to pursue her argument in a federal court trial. At that stage, city officials can attempt to prove that accommodating Beram’s request would be unreasonable.
—
Read More Arizona News
