x
Breaking News
More () »

ACLU: City of Phoenix in contempt of order following May 10 sweep of 'The Zone'

According to the ACLU, a court order from December remains in effect and the city violated it with the May 10 sweep of 'The Zone'

PHOENIX — The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to find the city of Phoenix in contempt of a court order that was filed back in December after a recent sweep of "The Zone"

According to the ACLU, the order remains in effect and the city violated it along with "the constitutional rights of unhoused people during encampment sweeps."

The city conducted a sweep of encampments in "The Zone" on May 10.

Jared Keenan, the legal director for the ACLU of Arizona, called the sweep unacceptable.

"Not only did the city of Phoenix violate an active court order, but they failed to follow their own protocols to treat unsheltered individuals with dignity and respect during a cleaning,” said Keenan.

In the order, the city is prohibited from "enforcing its camping and sleeping bans against unhoused people who cannot practically obtain shelter."

It also prohibits the seizure and destruction of the belongings of unhoused people "without notice and an opportunity to reclaim their property."

According to the ACLU, during the May 10 sweep, the city did the following:

  • Seized and destroyed many unsheltered individuals’ personal belongings and property in this area. 
  • Was not seen storing or marking collected items for storage. 
  • Did not make individualized assessments before coercing unsheltered individuals into limited and possibly unavailable shelter spaces 
  • Did not allow unsheltered individuals to return to the area that was cleaned, as their own cleanup plan required.  
  • Threatened citation and arrest without first ensuring available shelter that fit the individual’s needs. 

The city has plans to conduct a second sweep in "The Zone" on May 24. The ACLU is asking that this sweep be prevented along with any other future sweeps "until the city can ensure compliance."

In response, the City of Phoenix released the following statement:

"The City of Phoenix vehemently disagrees with the plaintiff’s description of the May 10 engagement effort around the Human Services Campus. The City took a human-focused and dignified approach to the effort and we are disappointed that the ACLU and its plaintiffs did not address their concerns with the City prior to filing a motion with the court. Their assertions are not accurate.

In reality, what plaintiffs did not see was that City staff and partners engaged 60 people in the area and each one of them cooperated with the request to move their belongings. Of those engaged, 47 people were transported to indoor shelters or treatment programs, a nearly 80% success rate in placing people into an indoor space.

No individual’s property was destroyed without their permission and there were no issues with unattended property. Any items that were removed from the block were authorized to be removed by the individuals who were formerly camping in the area when they engaged with our staff and were offered a place in shelter. The City and our partners also stored belongings for five individuals who requested it and we are in communication with those individuals to access their property.

The City provided every individual camping on 9th Ave with two weeks’ notice that the block would be closed to camping on May 10. The City and our partners provided staff to help individuals pack all belongings and direct immediate transportation to indoor shelter.

The City developed its enhanced engagement process to comply with both the injunction issued by Judge Snow on December 16, as well as complying with Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney’s order to abate a public nuisance created by individuals camping in the right of way.

The City is disappointed by the ACLU’s motion. The City was working in good faith to come to terms in settling the case. The City expressed to the plaintiffs that there were operational issues we were working through and needed time to reach an agreement in which the City could meet the terms.

The City’s most urgent priority is helping get people into safe indoor spaces where they can receive services and work to end their homelessness. This attempt by the plaintiffs to derail and interfere with our efforts to assist both individuals experiencing homelessness and nearby business owners does nothing to help those in need."

Up to Speed 

Catch up on the latest news and stories on the 12News YouTube channel. Subscribe today.

Before You Leave, Check This Out