Arizona City Repeals ‘Nuisance’ Law Challenged by ACLU on Behalf of Domestic Violence Survivor
Surprise, Ariz., Can No Longer Threaten Crime Victims With Eviction for Calling Police
PHOENIX — The city of Surprise, Ariz., today agreed to repeal a “nuisance law” that pressured landlords to evict tenants who place more than four calls to police in 30 days or for two crimes occurring at the property at any time, even if the tenant is the victim of the crime.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi P.C. brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of Nancy Markham in August 2015.
The lawsuit argued that the law deprived her of her First Amendment right to seek police assistance among other constitutional, fair housing, and statutory violations. The settlement includes the repeal of the nuisance ordinance from the Surprise Municipal Code, agreement not to adopt a future policy that punishes crime victims or deters calls for police assistance, and payment to Markham.
“Over the course of several months in 2014, I was abused repeatedly by my ex-boyfriend and desperately needed emergency assistance. I was shocked to discover that the city pressured my landlord to evict me for seeking protection from the police,” said Markham. “It’s a great relief to know that crime victims — especially abused women —will no longer be punished twice, once by their abuser and again by their city government.”
The ACLU said that while the nuisance ordinances in Surprise and other Arizona localities purport to protect public safety, they do not reduce crime and their enforcement hurts domestic violence and other crime victims attacked in their homes.
“Nuisance laws present crime victims with two options: endure abuse or face eviction,” said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “Muzzling victims not only jeopardizes them and their families, it also undermines public safety by discouraging reports to law enforcement.”
The ACLU added that by interfering with the fundamental governmental function of police protection, nuisance laws ignore the needs of victims, empower abusers to act without fear of police intervention and increase victims’ vulnerability to homelessness and future abuse.
“The lack of adequate housing for poor and working families already contributes to a downward spiral and loss of basic necessities,” said Dan Pochoda, senior counsel at the ACLU of Arizona. “Arizona localities with such laws must follow Surprise but voluntarily repeal provisions that are obstacles to needed shelter.”
When the law passed in June 2010, the William E. Morris Institute for Justice and others warned the Surprise City Council that the policy would increase the vulnerability of domestic violence victims, but the city passed the law anyway.
“We are pleased that the City of Surprise is repealing the nuisance ordinances at issue,” said cooperating attorney Heather A. Macre of Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi P.C. “We are all committed to protecting the rights of crime victims and providing them with safe and stable housing options in our community.”
Advocates have identified hundreds of across the country, and there are likely thousands more on the books. The ACLU challenged a similar ordinance in 2013 on behalf of a domestic violence survivor in Norristown, Penn., and also published a report on the harmful effects of these ordinances to crime victims in New York. The ACLU will continue to challenge and raise awareness about the harms of these laws for stripping crime victims of their constitutional rights.
More information is at:
Women's Rights
Nancy Markham v. City of Surprise
Women's Rights
Nancy Markham v. City of Surprise
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.