Supreme Court Mulls Housing Trespassing Case May 2, 2003
News Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether local public-housing authorities can designate streets and sidewalks around public-housing developments as no-trespassing zones to protect the area from drugs and crime, the Washington Post reported April 28.The case involves Kevin Hicks, who sued the Whitcomb Court public-housing development in Richmond, Va., after he was arrested for trespassing.
Six years ago, Whitcomb Court declared the streets and sidewalks around the complex the private property of the housing authority. The action was taken to curb open-air drug markets in the area.
"The whole concept behind this is to really try to make the community safer," said Tyrone P. Curtis, executive director of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA). "It is not intended to infringe on rights, but when you hear about a situation where kids are sleeping in their bathtubs to avoid bullets flying through the windows, you have to take extraordinary means to address those issues within the law."
Hicks was walking in a block surrounding Whitcomb Court that is known as a hub for cocaine and heroin sales. In his lawsuit, he argued that the streets and sidewalks are urban thoroughfares and people should be able to travel them freely.
"There is a clear constitutional violation of creating a suspect classification of African-American males," said Sa'ad El-Amin, a Richmond City Council member whose district includes Whitcomb Court, and who has opposed the policy. "They are using too broad a brush to achieve a laudable end."
Last year, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the RRHA policy, ruling that it was too broadly written and prohibited free speech and conduct protected by the First Amendment.
The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Hicks should not be allowed to use the free-speech argument because he was not engaging in any "expressive" activity when he was arrested.
The state also said that the housing authority, acting as a landlord, has the right to protect its property and tenants.
"There is no constitutional right to be present on the sidewalks or streets within Whitcomb Court," said Virginia's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: