Reno City Council members on Wednesday discussed four items related to what some are calling the further criminalization of poverty. The new rules criminalize activities such as sitting, lying, sleeping on or camping in public places. They also allow police to arrest individuals “loitering” on private property without needing to seek permission from the property owner or obtaining a warrant first.

Public comment submitted before and during the meeting was overwhelmingly against the proposed measure. Of comments sent before the meeting, 27 opposed each of the items, with only four in favor of each.

The new proposed Reno Municipal Code ordinance is called “Offenses Against Public Peace” and, if adopted on second reading at a future council meeting, makes sitting, lying, sleeping or camping in a public place a misdemeanor. The ordinance expands existing rules prohibiting those activities citywide.

The public places include “sidewalks, streets, alleys, sensitive areas or within doorways.” Sensitive areas include hospitals, public parks, public libraries, city and government facilities, warming and cooling centers, schools, child care facilities, city-permitted shelters for the unhoused or the Truckee River.

Under the ordinance, camping is defined as sitting, lying, storing belongings, placing a tent or other structure or furniture, making a fire, carrying on cooking activities or doing any “digging or earth breaking” in a public place.

“They’re offered services at every step, even if they received a citation or went to jail.”

Police and city officials said the new rules are more comprehensive than past ordinances against sitting or sleeping on public property. The ordinance also prohibits “using a motor vehicle in a public place for camping purposes unless specifically designated for such use.”

There are some exceptions to the restrictions, such as a person sitting or lying down during a medical emergency or someone using a wheelchair. It also exempts people or events with a permit for activities such as parades, festivals, rallies or similar events on public space.

People are also allowed to sit on a bench or chair within public spaces as long as the seating options are provided by a public agency. There’s no exception for someone who brings their own chair to sit.

Misdemeanor violations could lead to jail

Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or jail time, although Reno Police Chief Kathryn Nance said people should not be charged with a violation unless they have been warned first.

In lieu of being taken to jail, however, Reno Police Department officers may choose, with the consent of the person they are arresting, to take them to a facility “providing services related to mental health, housing and/or substance abuse treatment” as an alternative to arrest.

Nicole Anagapesis, a volunteer with Family Soup Mutual Aid, said the ordinance is “deeply concerning.”

“It does nothing to solve the material realities that we all experience on a day-to-day basis, which is that life is hard,” she said. “An ordinance like this strips the liberty of [people who are unhoused] away. No people may sit? What a joke.

“You people are so deeply uncreative in your problem solving… You people should not have freedom to sit in the seats you’re sitting in now,” she added.

The decision to begin amending and adding ordinances related to the use of public space follows the June 2024 Supreme Court ruling known as the Grants Pass ruling. The ruling, which began as an appeal by the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, led to the Supreme Court overruling a previous decision that essentially stated individuals could not be arrested for being homeless and sleeping outside if shelter space was unavailable.

The ruling allowed local governments to set their own ordinances related to public camping and sleeping. It also allows municipalities to arrest people experiencing homelessness even if they have no alternative option for shelter.

Most decline services

The City of Reno’s Cynthia Esparza said the ordinance “addresses an urgent community need related to encampments.” She said the ordinance will “discourage and mitigate unlawful activity interfering with equitable and safe access to public spaces for all members of the community to enjoy.”

She added that community members have complained daily about individuals blocking sidewalks, “occupied vehicles with associated human waste” or campfires. The city’s Reno Direct complaint logs are dominated by complaints of homeless encampments, trash and vandalism.

“Certainly it’s cold,” Esparza said. “We understand that.”

Under current city code, starting campfires is a misdemeanor offense unless started in a barbecue pit or fire ring within a designated area, such as a campground. Esparza said the new ordinance will ensure all members of the public can access public spaces, especially since projects have been undertaken to widen sidewalks in midtown and downtown.

“You people are so deeply uncreative in your problem solving.”

She said the ordinance will also allow the city to safeguard water resources from biohazardous materials, whether in the Truckee River or other public spaces. It is already illegal under city code to camp within 350 feet of the Truckee River’s shore. The City of Sparks and Washoe County have similar codes that widen the distance to 1,000 feet.

Even with this ordinance passed, Esparza said the city will continue to connect individuals to services. “For many years, we’ve led these efforts within the city of Reno for individuals that are living out in the elements, and while we have made significant progress, we are also seeing the reality that there is a higher level of service resistance in the community,” she said.

Out of 2,600 interactions with people who are homeless over the last six months, she said, 64% of people declined services. “While we recognize that every ‘no’ is closer to a ‘yes,’ we also need to be realistic that this is what we’re seeing in the community, and an ordinance like the one presented today could potentially help encourage service acceptance,” Esparza said.

She said there are more facilities providing shelter spaces to people who are homeless than in prior years, noting that between the Cares Campus and Our Place, there are 709 beds offered.

Dozens banned from Cares Campus

At the beginning of this year, it was estimated 2,000 individuals experiencing homelessness were living in Reno. That count can fluctuate by around 500 people, though this total only includes those who have been counted. Estimates in recent years have put the number as high as 7,000.

In 2021, Washoe County’s Dana Searcy said no one in the community has an accurate count of the unsheltered population and that the methodology used to count individuals is not reliable. There has also been a drastic increase in the death rate of individuals who are homeless, with a new record high set in 2023.

Esparza acknowledged that shelter requirements “could present some challenges” for individuals who would like to engage with their programs. While the Cares Campus is a low-barrier shelter, substance abuse and intoxication can be grounds for being denied access to a shelter.

Washoe County in September reported that, from July 2023 to June 2024, anywhere from 51 to 172 people per month were placed on the “sit-out” list for the Cares Campus, meaning they were not allowed at the shelter for anywhere from one day to one month. In March of this year, 41 people were on the one-month sit-out list.

During the same time period, a dozen people were permanently banned from the shelter and another 18 were banned but successfully appealed the ban and were allowed back. More than 50 people have been permanently banned.

Esparza said Washoe County will be compiling information on all of the beds available within the region beginning next month, which will provide an accurate accounting of the types of shelter offered and how many are available.

Officials: Ordinance puts service options before citations, jail

Deputy City Attorney Brian Sooudi said he “stole” ordinances from several other cities to craft the new ordinance, including pieces from Fresno, Portland, Seattle and San Antonio. “I took [those city ordinances] and I took our own current laws and kind of put this all together into one package,” he said.

Current laws would not change, but rather, this is an expansion, he added. Camping laws will apply across the city, not just within the downtown area. “I know there’s difficulty with people camping in the North Valleys, but we don’t have a law that says, ‘You can’t do that,’ so this would tackle some of the issues that the North Valleys are seeing. It’s expanding that jurisdiction from just the river or in a park to the entire city.”

“The law will not be used against those people for doing what the use of the land or chair or bench, whatever its intended use is for.”

Sooudi said there are misconceptions about the ordinance and that the law does not apply if people are sitting in places “designed to be sat on.”

“You’re sitting in a park. You’re sitting on a bench. This law does not apply to you,” he said. However, within the ordinance, there are no exceptions for people sitting in parks, along the river, or on the lawns of city-owned facilities like pools or libraries. The only exception, as written, is for benches and chairs provided as a feature of the location.

“The law will not be used against those people for doing what the use of the land or chair or bench, whatever its intended use is for,” Sooudi added.

He said the law is applied equally to everyone across the board and not “specifically targeting anybody,” which then “makes it okay.”

Council member Meghan Ebert asked if, under the ordinance, police would need to receive a complaint from a member of the public first or if they could enforce the ordinance on their own.

Sooudi said it could be either option.

Ebert said she was confused, since the ordinance relates to “public peace,” but at the last council meeting, they discussed at length with RPD Chief Kathryn Nance how officers are not allowed to enforce disturbing the peace laws unless a citizen reports it themselves.

“We had a big conversation last council meeting discussing how the police technically cannot have their peace disturbed, so I’m wondering how this is different than them not being able to observe the peace be disturbed by noise,” Ebert said. “I don’t understand why it’s not consistent across the two ordinances.”

Sooudi said the difference is that the necessity for a citizen to report a disturbance of the peace only applies to that charge.

“Disturbing the peace, like loud music, doesn’t apply,” he said. “If a police officer just thinks your music’s too loud, they can’t just enforce that.”

He said this ordinance would be a disrupting public peace charge under another chapter and section than the disturbing the peace charge. “So [the question is] as a community, do these activities disrupt the community, and that’s where this falls,” Sooudi said.

“I feel like loud noise is also disruptive to the community and could also be observed by the police,” Ebert said. “I don’t really understand why you couldn’t say that police could observe the peace being disturbed with noise.”

Ebert then asked what happens to an individual who is not willing to leave an area after being given warnings, and Nance said they could be arrested.

Council member Brandi Anderson said the ordinance states that individuals will be warned, then subject to potential removal or arrest, and then offered services.

“The warning and offering of services would happen at the same time?” she clarified.

“Yes, and so every time we come into contact with somebody who is experiencing homelessness, is having an issue of some kind, mental health or whatever it is, we always offer those services,” Nance said. “They’re offered services at every step, even if they received a citation or went to jail.”

Nance also said law enforcement will be able to keep track of who has received warnings before initiating an arrest and will only arrest an individual if that warning has been documented within the RPD system.

Ebert said she understands the need to get people into services but asked for more clarity on the intent behind the ordinance.

Esparza said it comes down to ensuring a quality of life for all members of the community and ensuring that sidewalks are accessible, parks are clean and the water quality along the Truckee is maintained.

“We will continue to provide outreach and be compassionate, but we also are being mindful of all our community members, their access, quality of life,” she added. She said the issues are frequently occurring in areas that have people with lower socioeconomic status who may not be reporting incidents. “So really it’s ensuring that we are taking a holistic approach and serving all members of the community.”

Nance said she doesn’t want anyone to have criminal records. She said for many of these types of charges, individuals first go to community court, where they’re required to get services. If they fail in the community court setting, they will have a warrant issued for their arrest, and they can even be given a second chance at community court.

“So there’s still additional steps for services along the way before it gets to potential jail time,” Nance said. “But I agree with you that they don’t want to take away or give people big criminal records. This is not a felony conviction. It will not interfere with employment, and even after they’ve been arrested, they have the opportunity to change those behaviors.”

While Nevada does limit some access employers have to criminal histories of prospective employees, employers are able to see recent arrests relevant to the employment position, incidents currently being handled in the justice system such as parole or probation, and convictions that resulted in a jail sentence. The law prohibiting employers from obtaining a criminal history search until after a final interview does not apply to private sector jobs or jobs within public service, such as firefighting or police service.

Council votes to allow police to arrest ‘loiterers’

Council members also approved an amendment to a citywide loitering ordinance that will allow police to arrest “loiterers” on private property so long as business owners post a “no loitering” sign and enter into an agreement that gives RPD permission to arrest or clear loiterers on their behalf without needing to be contacted first.

According to Chris Jacobson, assistant chief of RPD, the purpose of the ordinance is to address large groups of people hanging out on private property, particularly in areas he claims have seen more violence, drug activity and property damage.

He said individuals brought to downtown by the nightclubs are causing a majority of the issues. They “might be drinking from their cars because they don’t want to go into the club to buy it or selling drugs from their cars because they don’t want to take it into the nightclub and get discovered,” he said. “They might have weapons. We respond to fights, stabbings, shootings, disturbances of peace.”

Jacobson said it takes a lot of RPD’s time because they must go into a business to ask if those individuals are wanted or must first ask individuals if they have permission to be there.

As the current law is written, he said RPD cannot take action against loiterers unless property owners ask for assistance, including when the business is closed and the owner is not on-site.

“We might not have a contact number for the business owner when problems arise,” Jacobson said. “It’s an open parking lot, but we don’t have the authority to tell them they have to leave.”

Jacobson said earlier this year, RPD faced “significant issues” from downtown nightclubs.

“We saw large groups gathering in a parking lot across from one of the clubs … drinking, causing trouble,” he said. “But without an ordinance, we had no authority to move them along.”

Officers are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states under the Plain View Doctrine and associated Supreme Court rulings that law enforcement officers are allowed to arrest individuals engaged in criminal activity if officers can see the criminal activity or evidence of such, like drugs, in plain view on private property without a warrant.

In comparison, the language of the proposed ordinance does not associate the act of loitering with any other criminal activity but rather is simply defined as “to stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.”

Under the proposed ordinance, property owners will be able to post no loitering signs, which will allow police to contact individuals they deem to be loiterers directly.

“It’s a proactive approach,” Jacobson said. “Officers could patrol, spot issues early and address them before they escalate.”

The ordinance will also include an amendment stating that a “letter of authority” for businesses will be valid indefinitely as opposed to requiring a yearly renewal as originally suggested. The letter of authority essentially grants consent to RPD to act on their behalf in regard to loiterers without needing to give explicit approval or ask for a complaint first.

“One of the big problems we suffered was In-N-Out Burger,” Jacobson said. “All the kids would congregate, hang out and do nothing in the parking lot. It would lead to fights. We had a murder, where a kid got shot because they were shooting to hit an innocent girl. They do burnouts. They start racing.”

Those incidents occurred where Jacobson used to live—in California. He said he was just using the examples to show that loitering affects businesses whether they’re open or closed.

The council voted unanimously to begin the ordinance amendment process, which will return to council for a second reading and possible adoption.