SB 5028
In CommitteeSenate
Unlawful camping
Concerning unlawful camping.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a statewide policy allowing cities and counties to prohibit camping on public property, while requiring law enforcement to check shelter availability before issuing citations. It establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations, with a focus on diverting people to therapeutic courts instead of jail — unless shelter space is unavailable, in which case citations are prohibited.
- Prohibits camping on public property unless specifically authorized by the government agency that manages the property.
- Makes it unlawful to camp on public property if it poses a substantial danger to people, a serious health/safety risk, or disrupts government services — regardless of shelter availability.
- Bans camping or storing personal property within 3 blocks of congregate shelters (if signs are posted) and within 1,000 feet of schools, daycares, or parks — regardless of shelter availability.
- Sets escalating penalties: $50 fine for first offense, $250 fine + 180-day ban for second, and misdemeanor for third, with referrals to therapeutic court instead of jail unless ineligible.
- Requires law enforcement to confirm nearby 24/7 low-barrier shelters had available space in the prior 24 hours before citing someone for camping on public property.
Who is affected
- People experiencing homelessness — People experiencing homelessness who sleep or camp on public property, especially near shelters, schools, or parks; may face civil infractions, fines, or criminal charges depending on repeat violations and shelter availability.
- Law enforcement officers — May be required to verify shelter availability before issuing citations; must follow specific procedures to avoid unconstitutional enforcement.
- Individuals cited under the new camping law — May be referred to therapeutic court instead of jailed for first or second violations, if eligible; may receive reduced penalties if shelter space is unavailable.
- Local governments and public property managers — Must ensure public spaces comply with signage and enforcement rules, and may need to coordinate with local shelters to verify capacity.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
Requires law enforcement to refer eligible individuals to therapeutic court instead of jail for first and second violations, offering an alternative to incarceration that may reduce recidivism and connect people to housing and mental health services—though effectiveness depends on program capacity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(d)Prohibits citations when no shelter space is available, preventing criminalization of homelessness when basic needs are unmet—this is a significant safeguard against punitive enforcement and aligns with constitutional concerns raised in *Grants Pass v. Johnson*.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)Allows continued prohibition of camping where it poses substantial danger, health/safety risks, or disrupts government services—this preserves public safety exceptions for extreme cases (e.g., open fires near schools, hazardous waste), balancing rights with community safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)-(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Requires law enforcement officers to verify shelter availability before issuing citations, which adds procedural complexity and could delay enforcement in urgent situations; officers may lack real-time shelter capacity data, leading to inconsistent application across jurisdictions.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(5)Prohibits camping within 3 blocks of congregate shelters (if signs posted), potentially displacing people to adjacent blocks without increasing actual shelter access—effectively relocating rather than resolving homelessness.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)Bans camping within 1,000 feet of schools, daycares, and parks regardless of shelter availability, which may push people into less visible but equally unsafe or unsanitary locations (e.g., industrial zones or dense forested areas), increasing risks of exposure and victimization.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)Criminalizes repeat camping violations with misdemeanor charges, potentially increasing entanglement with the justice system for people who lack stable housing and may not be able to attend court dates or pay fines, leading to warrants and further marginalization.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(4)(c)Mandates therapeutic court referrals for first- and second-time offenders, but therapeutic courts are already backlogged statewide and capacity is limited—many individuals may not actually receive the intended diversion, resulting in fines without support.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(4)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
People experiencing homelessness—especially those near shelters, schools, or parks—face civil infractions, fines, and potential criminalization if shelter space is unavailable. While the bill blocks jail for first offenses and mandates therapeutic court referrals, many lack the resources to comply with court dates or afford fines, increasing legal entanglement.
Law enforcement officers must now verify shelter availability before issuing citations, adding administrative burden and requiring coordination with shelters. Officers may face liability if they misapply the shelter-availability check, and inconsistent data systems across jurisdictions may lead to uneven enforcement.
Local governments must invest in signage, shelter coordination, and potentially new data systems to comply with verification requirements. While the bill may reduce short-term jail costs, it shifts costs to local courts and social services through therapeutic court referrals and enforcement logistics.
Shelters and service providers face increased demand for capacity verification and coordination with law enforcement. If the bill increases enforcement pressure without expanding shelter capacity, providers may see higher turnover and stress on limited beds.
Therapeutic courts may face increased caseloads due to mandatory referrals, but without additional funding, this could strain existing resources and reduce program quality or access. Some individuals may not qualify or fail to complete the program, leading to re-referral cycles.