Facts
- During warm-weather months, a group of homeless individuals set up a campsite on City of Des Moines property under the Martin Luther King Jr. bridge near the Raccoon River, using tents and makeshift shelters and storing possessions on-site.
- After receiving numerous complaints, the City inspected the site and found no suitable restroom or cooking facilities, unsanitary conditions, and unsafe heating methods that created a fire risk.
- On January 17, 2013, the City posted a notice stating the occupants were violating Des Moines Municipal Code section 102-615 by “encroaching” on City property (living/residing and storing personal property) and directed them to vacate by January 29, 2013, or face forcible removal and/or arrest.
- The notice informed the occupants they could appeal to the City clerk by January 28, 2013, and a timely appeal was filed.
- An administrative hearing was held on January 31, 2013, before the City’s administrative hearing officer, Cassandra Webster.
- The occupants asserted a necessity defense, arguing that removing them during below-freezing winter temperatures would expose them to harm. They also argued the local homeless shelter was over capacity and that the shelter did not provide storage space for their belongings.
- Evidence at the hearing showed the shelter could be crowded in winter, but the occupants would have been allowed to stay there if they chose to do so.
- The City presented evidence of the campsite’s fire hazards and referred to a similar encampment that had burned due to unsafe heating practices.
- Webster allowed the occupants to raise necessity (drawing on cases where necessity was used in criminal prosecutions) and ruled in favor of the occupants, finding winter cold and limited shelter capacity made continued camping “necessary.”
- The City sought a writ of certiorari in district court to challenge the legality of Webster’s decision; the district court denied relief and upheld Webster’s ruling.
- The City appealed.
Issues
- In a municipal encroachment enforcement proceeding reviewed by certiorari, did the hearing officer and district court err by allowing and upholding a necessity justification for continued occupation of City property?
- Even if necessity could be considered, was there substantial evidence to support a finding that the occupants met the elements of necessity, including the absence of a reasonable lawful alternative?
Decision
- The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling and remanded with instructions to enter an order sustaining the writ of certiorari.
- The court concluded the record did not contain substantial evidence supporting the necessity justification because a reasonable lawful alternative—staying at the homeless shelter—remained available.
- The court rejected the idea that overcrowding at the shelter or the lack of storage for belongings eliminated that legal alternative, and it credited the City’s evidence of health and fire hazards at the encampment.
Legal Principles
- The necessity defense is a narrow, exceptional justification requiring proof of: (1) an imminent threatened harm, (2) no reasonable lawful alternative, (3) a direct causal link between the violation and avoiding the harm, and (4) a choice of the lesser harm.
- A reasonable lawful alternative defeats necessity, even if the alternative is unpleasant or involves hardship (such as crowding or leaving property behind).
- On certiorari review, an administrative decision may be set aside as illegal when key findings lack substantial evidentiary support.
- Public health and safety conditions (including sanitation problems and fire risk) are proper considerations in evaluating whether continued unlawful occupation can be treated as the lesser harm.
Conclusion
The Iowa Court of Appeals held that the administrative hearing officer’s acceptance of a necessity justification for the homeless encampment was not supported by substantial evidence because the occupants had a lawful alternative in the available shelter, despite crowding and storage limits; the court reversed and ordered the district court to sustain the City’s writ of certiorari.