Pottinger, et al v. City of Miami, No. 1:1988cv02406 - Document 682 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 2/15/2019. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pottinger, et al v. City of Miami Doc. 682 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M iam iDivision CaseNumber:88-2406-CIV-M OREN O M ICHA EL PO TTIN G ER ,PETER CA RTER, and BERRY YOUNG, Plaintiffs, V S. CITY OF M IAM I, Defendant. M EM O R AND U M O PINIO N bçgolne ofthe things Pottinger has done so wellis create this amazing collaboration whereitforced thedifferentstakeholdersto work together.''(Tr.vol.4,29).1Theveracity of Judge Steve Leifm an's statem entwas evidentin this proceeding as this Courtheard tim e and again aboutthe m yriad ofprogrnm s and aid available to the hom eless in this com m unity.There can be no doubt that in the twenty years this ConsentDecree has been in place,the City of M iamihasendeavored to eradicatehom elessness.Although M iam ihasmade significantirlroads, homelessness unfortunately persists,as itdoes in al1cities in Am erica.Yet,the City continues daily to mitigate the effectsin a mannerconsistentwith the Pottinger Agreem ent.The issuesin these proceedings are whetherthe City has substantially com plied with the Fottinger Consent Decree such thatfederalcourtoversightshould come to an end after 20 years orwhetherthe City'streatm entofthehom elessrequiresthisCoul' tto continue itsoversightand even to hold the City in contempt. IReferencestothetranscriptsofthesix-day evidentiaryhearing areasfollows: Tr.vol.lrefersto Septem ber24,20I8 transcript Tr.vol.2refersto Septem ber25,20l8 transcript Dockets.Justia.com L BACKGROUND The world haschanged dramatically since the originalfiling ofthis complaint 30 years ago andtheCityofM iamiisnoexception.ln 1988,JudgeC.ClydeAtkinsentered aninjunction to preventthe arrestofthehomelessforbeing hom elessand the seizure oftheirproperty.After 10 years of litigation, a settlement was reached between the homeless Plaintiffs led by M r. Pottingerand the City of M iam i,and the undersigned entered the Consent Decree comm only referredto asthePottingerAgreem ent.z The 1998 PottingerAgreementwaslaterm odified with the agreem entofboth partiesin 2014 to exclude sexualoffendersfrom theprotected classofthe homeless.ln thetwenty yearsof the Pottinger Agreem ent,the City ofM iam ipolice departmentinstituted departmentalpolicies thatprohibited the police officers'pastpracticesofarresting the homeless withoutcause.Asa directconsequence ofthe excellentwork done by the attorneysforthe Am erican CivilLiberties Union representing thehom eless,the PottingerAgreement1edto,notonly achange in theCity's police departm ent,butalso contributed to a totalculturalchange in the way the homelesswere treated by a1lCity employees.Thatculturalchange also contributed to the creation ofa M iam i- Dade County Homeless Trust supported by taxes and grants that yield an annualbudget of approximately $61-65 million to assistthe homeless in various activities,including medical assistance,shelters,etc.(Tr.vol.2,24). Because of these changed circum stances,the City of M iami seeks term ination of the twenty-year old Pottinger Agreem ent.On the other hand,the Plaintiffs not only oppose the Tr.vol.3referstoSeptember26,2018transcript Tr.vol.4 refersto October24,2018 transcript Tr.vol.5 referstoOctober25,2018 transcript Tr.vol.6 referstoNovember1,2018 transcript 2TheoriginalPlaintiffs,M ichaelPottinger,PeterCarter,andBerry Young,aredeceased ortheirwhereaboutsare unknown.On December23,2013,theCourtgrantedPlaintiffs'M otion toAddClassRepresentativesand named Carole Patman and David Peery asclassrepresentatives. 2 termination ofthe agreem ent,butthey have also m oved to hold the City ofM iamiin contempt for violating the agreement by seizing the propel' ty of the hom eless in the City's clean-up operations.The City's 2018 clean-up operationswere essentialbecause ofthehealth and safety concernsstem mingfrom varioushom elessencampm ents. The Courtconducted an evidentiary hearing on theparties'motionsovernum erousdays. The Courtw illm ake findings of factand separate conclusions of 1aw based on the testim ony of the City'switnesses,overthirty hom elesswitnesses,and severalexpertwitnesses in the tleld of hom elessness.The Courtis notcharged with çûresolving''the hom eless problem in the City of M iami.However,the Courtwas im pressed with allthe services provided to the hom eless by many individualsand organizationsasadirectconsequenceoftheculturalchange engendered by the Pottinger Agreem ent.A ssuch,there is little dispute thatthe numberofhom elesshasbeen reduced countywide from 10,000to around 1s000,although thosenum bersareim precisebecause ofthedifticulty ofcountingthehomeless.Ofthose,theoverwhelmingmajority (over600)arein the City ofM iami.According to the U.S.Census,the 2017 population estimate forthe City of M iami is 463,347 and the estim ate for the County is 2,751,796.3 M eaning,even though the City'spopulation isonly about17% ofthe County'soverallpopulation,itishom e to over60% ofitshomeless.lndeed,M r.Ronald L.Book,Chairofthe Hom elessTrust,testitied that66% of allhomelessindividualsplacedin shelterscomefrom theCityofM iami.(Tr.vol.2at10). Thus,there is little dispute thatM iam ihas changed,its hom elesspopulation has declined by 90% ,and the City isthe onlv m unicipalitv outof34 in M iami-DadeCounty and the County's unincorporated area,4subjectto thePottingerAgreement.Also,both sidesagreethatarresting 3Seeh/ps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/miamicityiorida,miamidadecountyioridipsTo4fzl7. 4Itis estim ated thatthe population ofthe County'sunincorporated area exceedsonem illion residents, approxim ately36% ofthetotalpopulation.Seehlps://www 8.m iam idade.gov/global/disclaim er/about-m iam i-dadecounty.page. 3 the homeless is never a solution because, apart from the constitutional im pedim ents, it is expensive,notrehabilitating,inhumane,and notthe way to dealwith the tichronic''hom eless, who sufferfrom mentalillnessesand substance abuse addiction.The solution to those problem s isbeyondthescopeofany powergiven to thejudiciary.Yet,theCourtdoeshavethepowerto enforcetheparties'agreementand ofcourse,courtsalwayshavethepowerto enforcetheUnited StatesConstitution toprotectindividualsfrom unlawfularrestsand seizuresoftheirproperty. The dispute in this case is sim ply the impactthatterminating the Pottinger Agreement willhave on the constitutionalrightsofthehom elessto be free from harassm ent,arrests,andthe unlawfultaking oftheirproperty.During thc lasttwenty years,so m uch has changed in how the City ofM iamitreatsitshomelesspopulation thattheCourtfindsthePottingerAgreementshould indeed be term inated.The changes in the treatm entofthe homeless are the directresultofthe vigorouschallengeby the Am erican CivilLibertiesUnion attorneyson behalfofthehom elessin thiscase. The Courtis underno illusionsthatthe City ofM iam ihas resolved hom elessness.But,as homelessexpertJudge Steve Leifm an,a witness forthe Plaintiffs,testised,M iam ihas becom e the bestcity in the country in dealing with the hom eless.The health crisis,aboutwhich there is no dispute involving drug use,public sex,and rodentsin hom elessticampsn''mustbedealtwith forthe protection ofthehom elessthemselvesand the citizens,including children,who live and walk nearthesegatherings.Anyabusebytheauthoritiesissubjecttoindividualcivilrightssuits. Unattended personalproperty lefton public sidewalksand fences,which posepublichealth and safety concerns,are allowed to be seized and dispensed by the City.Any arrestnotbased upon probable cause by the City of Miamipolice departmentwillsubjectthe police to the same liability whethertheaggrieved party ishomelessorhasahom e. 4 Therefore,the City ofM iam i'sM otion forTermination isGRAN TED ,and the Plaintiffs' M otion to HoldtheCity in ContemptisDENIED. l1.FIN D IN G S O F FA CT Twenty years ago, this Court approved a settlem ent between a class of Plaintiffs, consisting ofhom eless individuals,and the City of M iami,where the Plaintiffs lived.United States DistrictJudge C.Clyde Atkins found the City ofM iam ihad unconstitutionally arrested homelesspersonsforengaging in life-sustaining actsthey were forced to conductin public,such as sleeping,cooking,eating,sitting,congregating,and relieving them selves.Judge Atkins found theCity (sused the arrestprocessforthe ulteriorpum ose ofdriving homelessfrom public areas.'' Pottingerv.Cit y ofM iami,810F.Supp.1551,1566(S.D.Fla.1992). Recognizing the limited role ofthe Courtin fashioning a rem edy,Judge Atkinsissued a negativeinjunctionthatprohibitedtheCity from arrestinghomelesspeopleforsleeping,eating, lying down,or sitting in two safe zoneshe established in downtown M iami.The injunction furtherprohibited City police from destroying personalproperty belonging to the hom eless.The injunctiondidnotprohibitpolicefrom arrestinghomelesspersonsforcriminalacts. The Settlem entAgreem entultim ately reached in thiscasewastheproductoften yearsof litigation,appeals,and extensivem ediation.Afterahearing,thisCoul't,assigned to thecase after JudgeAtkins,approved thePottingerAgreement,which hasbeen in placeeversince. Asm odified in 2014,the ConsentDecree detailsa protocolthatgoverns City ofM iam i police interactions with those experiencing hom elessness. City police m ay not approach a hom eless individual,w ho is not com m itting a crim e,unless the approach is to offer services. (ConsentDecree,Def.Exh.1 at6-8).5w ith certain exceptions,the police may notarrestor threaten to arrestany hom elessperson forcomm itting tilife sustaining conductmisdemeanors,'' 5TheconsentDecreeisatD.E.382.The2014 Addendum isatD.E.525-1. 5 unlessthey firstofferthe individualan available space in a shelterwithin city lim itsorwithin a mile ofthose limits,and the individualrefusesthatoffer.1d.at6,8.Upon refusalofavailable shelter,thehomelessindividualis subjectto arrestifthere isprobable cause thata crime has been comm itted.1d.The ConsentDecreeliststhelife-sustaining conductmisdem eanorsand does notprohibitpolice from arresting individualsform isdemeanorsnoton the list.I6L at9-11.M iam i policeneed notoffershelterpriorto arresting a homelessindividualcom mitting a felony.Id at 12. TheConsentDecree also offersprotection fortheproperty ofhomelessindividuals. The Decree requiresa11City employeesto follow procedures fortaking custody ofpersonalproperty and notto destroy personalproperty reasonably recognizable asbelonging to thehom eless.f#.at 12-13.TheDecreedoesnotpreventthe City from destroying contaminated property,orproperty thatotherwiseposesahealth hazard.1d.Theevidenceshowed thatalthough the City hasroutine protocolin place,the City outreach team did not have written procedures in place for the handling ofproperty when thePlaintiffstlled theirm otion forcontempt.6 ln itsm otion,the City ofM iamiseeks to term inate the ConsentDecree,oratthe very least,modify itin four differentways.One proposed m odification is to exclude whatthe City callsthe chronically homelessfrom thepurview ofthedecree.The otherproposed m odification would permitashelterspace anywherein M iami-DadeCounty to be offered in lieu ofarrestfora life sustaining conductm isdem eanor,ratherthan only a shelter within the city limits orwithin onem ile,asiscurrently thecase.The City also proposestwo additionalmodifications,which are to include language prohibiting the storage ofa hom eless person's belongingson public property and exempting from the Decree actionstakenbythe City in cleaningpublicareas. 6AfterClosing Arguments,theCity tsled awrittenAdministrativePolicyAddressing TreatmentofHomeless Property.Becausethispolicy wasnotintroduced attheevidentialy hearing,theCourtdoesnotrely on itin ruling onthemotions. 6 ln itsdiscretion,the Courtheld an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed issues of fact and to determ ine whether the City carries its burden to show significant changed circum stancesand substantialcompliancewith the ConsentDecree.Theinquiry isfact-intensive. The trialcoul'tis kivested with broad discretion in granting ordenying discovery,''See King v. Greenblatt,149F.3d9,13(1stCir.1998).ThisCourtallowedthepartieslimiteddiscoveryprior to conducting theevidentiaryhearing. SummaryofchangedCircumstancesintheCf/y ofM iamisince1998 The testim ony was unequivocalthatthe Pottinger Agreementwas a catalystfor a11the stakeholders in M iami-Dade County to devise appropriate program sto com bathomelessness.It was an Sdincentive to provide the services for the population.''(Tr.vol.4,8).Judge Steve Leifm an,Associate Administrative Judge ofM iam i-Dade County's Crim inalDivision,and the Chairofthe Florida Suprem e CourtSteering Com m ittee on M entalH ea1th and Substance A buse Courts,testified thatCsgilthasbeen asigniticantmotivatorforallthe stakeholdersto come up with appropriateprogramson how to dealwith thispopulation,and ithasworked.''ld.at7.The evidence showed that the numbers of hom eless persons in M iam i has plumm eted.1d. The evidence also showed thatthe 'tpopulation thatwe have lefton the streetisdifferentthan what we had when we first started.''f#. Pottinger was not developed to address the m ental and substanceabuseissuesthatremain presentin ourcommunity.ltwasprim arily devised toprevent the policefrom arresting the homelessin certain circumstancesand from unlawfully taking their property.The evidence showed iiithas achieved thatend.''fJ.at 15.The evidence also showed that the City of M iam i is unlikely to revert to those policies given the m yriad of program s available to itas a m eans to aid the hom eless.Those program s did notexistw hen Pottinger was filed in 1988.Itis true that by the time the ConsentDecree was entered,ten years aher the litigation began,the w heels w ere in m otion and hom eless aid initiatives w ere beginning to take 7 shape. In the twenty years since, the proliferation of services and funding available in this comm unity has been transform ative causing a 90% reduction in the numberofhom eless.There is also a general consensus ofwhat work rem ains and how to chip away at those remaining statistics. 1.Changesin Police Work The City began its presentation by calling its Police ChiefJorge Colina,a 28-yearveteran ofthe force and the chief since January 2018 and James Bernat,an executive oftk er for the Police Department,and an 1l-year veteran with the force.Chief Colina discussed the City's interdepartmentaleffortsto aid the hom eless,including the City'snewly form ed Departmentof Human Services.(Tr.vol.1,60-61,94).Both testifed regarding the changesin policing since Pottingertsinception.N ow,every City oftscerwearsa body camerato record engagementswith the public and every officerhas accessto an interactive sim ulatorto teach them how to read in differentscenarios.1d.at65-67.Every police vehicle has a com puter,where officerscan watch training videosand accessDepartmentalOrders,including those orders explaining how to treat thehomeless.ld.at68-69.Allofticersreceivetrainingon Pottingertsrequirem entsand scenariobased training so they are well-versed in the appropriate treatmentofthe hom eless.1d.at54-55; (Def.Exh.40). ChiefColina testified thatthe departm enthas implemented disciplinary proceduressince the Pottinger agreementwas entered.1d.at 61.Any police ofticer found to have violated the orderissubjectto discipline,upto andincludingtermination orarrest.1d.at47-48.Oneincident involving a homeless individualnamed Java Brooks,isunderinvestigation by theD epartm ent's lnternalAffairs.1d.at87-88.7 7TheCourtnotesthatJavaBrookstestifiedthatshehadrecentlychangtdhernameandherpriornamewasJava Houston.lnthepleadings,thepartiesusebothnamesinterchangeably.(Tr.vol.3,151). 8 Section VIl1 of the Pottinger Agreem ent requires the City to keep records of police interaction with the hom eless. Pursuantto the agreement,officers docum entevery interaction with a homeless individual in the form of a Field lnformation Card.(Def.Exh. Departmental Order 11,Chapter 10 requires thatthese cards be kept on file with the police recordsunitliketheold library cardcataloguing system.(Def.Exh.95,100).Beyonddisputeis thatchangesin technology,including body cam erasand cellularphones,renderthisrequirement ofa tkcard catalogue''archaic and obsolete.TheCourtobserved videotape evidencedocumenting policeinteractionswiththehomelessinthiscase.(P1.Exh.578-37,39).Althoughtherearemany contributing factors, the transparency in police work, caused by technology, surely helped precipitatethesharp declinein arreststatisticsrelatingtohomelessindividuals.(Tr.vol.4,30). J.FundingChangesandtheDevelopmentoftheContinuum ofcare The evidence described the changesin funding efforts in M iami-Dade County since the inception ofthePottingerAgreement. Ronald L.Book,the Chairm an oftheHom elessTrustfor thelastdecade,testified asto the funding effortsto assistthehom elessin thiscomm unity.Prior to serving asthe Chairofthe Hom elessTrust,M r.Book chaired the financecomm ittee sincethe H om eless Trust's creation over 24 years ago. M r. Book began his w ork 25 years ago on a legislativeefforttopassthefoodand beveragetax inM iami-DadeCounty.(Tr.vol.2,5-6).The tax wasan outgrow'th oftheGovernor'sComm ission on Hom elessnessand pal4ofa lo-yearplan to end homelessnessin M iami-Dade County.1d.The Homeless Trustisthe funding source and overseerofthe panoply ofservicesforthehom eless,known asthe continuum ofcare in M iamiD ade County.ld Twenty-seven m em bers participate on the public board that adm inisters the food and beverage tax dollars,federal and state grants, and other revenue strenm s.Id The continuum of care was created to provide a11 the programs and services needed to end 9 hom elessness.1d.at 7.lt startswith the City ofM iami's outreach teams,known as the Green Shirts,many ofwhom are formerly hom elessindividualsthemselves.The Green Shirtswork on bringing the hom elessinto the continuum ofcare,which includes m edicalcare,m entalhealth counseling,substanceand alcoholabusetreatm ent,shelter,and housing.16L at10. The City'soutreach efforts are kçcompletely intertwined''with the Homeless Trust.1d.at 9.The Trust owns two Homeless Assistance Centers,in its partnership with the Chapm an Partnership.1d.at10.TheCity'soutreach workersbringthehomelessindividuals(from theCity ofM iamiand othergeographicareas)to thesecenters;thehomelesscannotsimplywalk into a centerforassistance.1d.The placementsin the Chapman HomelessAssistance Centersare66% derived from the City ofM iam i.1d.ln the 24 yearssincethecreation ofthe Hom elessTrust,the County started with over 8,000 streetunsheltered homeless individuals,and thatnum ber has plumm eted to 1,104.1d.at11.Oftheroughly 1,000 homelessin the County,approxim ately 664 are in the City ofM iam i.1d.at 11,17. M r.Book testitied therehasbeen a 90% reduction in the City ofM iam iand countywidesincethe startofthe Hom elessTrust.1d.at11. The Departm entofHousing and Urban Developmentalso providesfunding and dictates certain standardsand protocolsforhomelessindividualsto accessthe system.(Tr.vol.2,79). The Homeless Trust developed a Coordinated Entry System ,which provides a hotline for homeless individuals to call for aid. f#. The evidence showed that hom eless individuals sometimeshavetocallthehotlinefor30daysormoreto getintoashelter.1d.at79-804(Tr.vol. 3,50-51).TheCamillusHouseDayCenterprovidesphonesforthem tocallthehotline.(Tr.vol. 2,80). The moniesgenerated by theHomelessTrustfrom the food and beveragetax areused as an elastic band.1d.at 13.W hen the Trustprovides funding to the differentcom munity-based 10 organizations, such as Camillus House and the Salvation Arm y, the Trust expects these organizations to use those funds as leverage to obtain additionalgrants and fundsto buy m ore bedsand unitsofhousing.1d.Ofthe fundscollected by the Trust,approxim ately 33 to 34% are generated in the City ofM iami,which isthedominantsourceoffood and beverage tax revenues in the County.B1d The Pottinger Agreem enthasno im pacton the collection ofthe food and beveragetax.1é at15. Cam illus House is a key componentofthe continuum ofcare. Hilda M .Fernandez,the CEO of CamillusH ouse,a M inistry of St.John ofGod,testifed regarding the organization's work with the homeless in M iam i-Dade County.1d.at 50.Cam illus House Operates program s throughoutthe county serving about1,100 peopledaily.ld at51.Som e oftheprogram sinclude theLazarusproject,whichisaprogram thatisacombination ofemployeesfrom CamillusHouse and Cam illus Health.Id at52.The medicalassistants,a psychiatric nurse practitioner,and the Green Shirts engage the hardestto serve,severely mentally illchronically homeless,medicate them onthestreet,and getthem sufficiently stableto enterthecontinuum ofcare.Id.Dr.Edward Suarez,the former director of the Lazarus Project,testified thatthe idea is to gethomeless individualsstarted on necessary m edication and therapy whilethey awaithousing.1d.at94-95. Cam illusalso providesa day centerto serve the streethomeless,allowing individualsto come in and access showers,clothing,a hot breakfast,and mail service.Id.at 52.Camillus operateswith a sisteragency,Cam illusHea1th Concern,which providesa clinicon the Camillus campus,which provideshealthcare servicesto those thatcom e into the day program .1d.at55. Cam illus provides temporary storage while people are accessing services on the Camillus BThefood andbeveragetax isnotchargedinthecitiesofM iamiBeach,Ba1Harbour,andSurfside,which charge tourism-relatedtaxes.TheCity ofM iamiBeach providesfundstobuybedsin thecontinuum ofcareand coordinates withtheHomelessTrustinthatregard.W hentheCity ofM iamiBeachpurchasesbeds,ohentimesthebedsarein theCityofMiami.(Tr.vol.2,13-15). campus.1d.at52.The organization also provides emergency housing,treatm entprograms,and permanent supported housing.Id at 52-53.In providing a11 these services, Cam illus serves various populations,including unaccom panied hom eless youth,victim s of human trafficking, and veterans.Id For the last fifteen years,Cam illus has been providing perm anent housing,which is known asthe Housing Firstm odelin the continuum ofcare.fJ.This ishousing forindividuals m oving outofhom elessness,wh0 do n0tneed intensive supportservices,and can pay reduced rentsto live in facilitiesowned by Cam illus.ld There areon-site cliniciansthatprovide services to individualsin perm anentsupported housing.ld at56. In addition to Cam illus House's partnership with the City of M iami on the Lazarus Project,theCityhasanagreementwith Camillustofundshelterbedsandprovidesupportforthe Cam illusDay Centerprogram .Id at56-57.The City funds 75 beds,65 are extended-stay beds, and 10 are 24-hour beds.Id at59.Form er City Com missionerM arc Sarnofftestified thatthe City provided funding, $10 million dollars,to aid Cam illus House's relocation to its new campus.(Tr.vol.2,30). J.TheChronicallyHomelessand OutreachEfforts The City's outreach efforts have also changed since the inception of the Pottinger Agreement. The record dem onstrates agreem ent among City police and adm inistration that arresting homelessindividualsisnotan effectiverem edy sincethehom elessindividualsreturn to the streets within a short time. The City created outreach operations to m ove hom eless individualsoffthe streetsand intothe continuum ofcare.Asofthefallof2018,the City created anew departmentcalled theDepartmentofHuman Services.(Tr.vol.1,276).TheDepartment includes homeless outreach,a child care center,job training,and employment.1d.at277. Prior to this past fall, the City of M iam i's Department of Veterans Affairs and Homeless Servicesprovided outreach tothehom elesscomm unity. The City'sGreen Shirts,the homelessoutreach employees,work in the streetsofM iam i to movethehomelessinto thecontinuum ofcare orto getthem socialservicesasneeded. Sergio Torres,the Director of the new Departm ent of Hum an Services, testified that he conducts training sessions forhisdepartment,and otherCity em ployees,who interactwith thehomeless, including Parks and Recreation staff and the police department's Neighborhood Enhancem ent Teams. (Tr.vol. 1, 233-234).David Rosemond,the Assistant Director of Neighborhood Enhancem entTeam s,oversees the Green Shirts to ensure they are working as a cohesive unit. (Tr.vol.6,30).Duetotheteams'activeengagementwiththehomeless,theCityofM iamihasa contractwith M iam i-Dade County to perform the work countywide.fJ.at 31.The role ofthe Green Shirtsis to usherthe hom elessfrom the streets and to the agenciesthatcan bestprovide them services.1d.at32.M any know thehom elessindividualsby firstand lastnamesand know theircircum stances.1d.at33.The City providesthe Green Shirtswith training on how to engage the homeless,how to provide them services,and how to talk to people who find themselves homeless.ld.ThemajorityoftheGreen Shirtsareformerly homelessindividuals,orindividuals in recovery.ld at34.Som e ofthe Green Shirtshave been working in thatcapacity since the inceptionoftheprojectin 1992.Id at35. The outreach efforts are not always successful as many hom eless individuals refuse available shelter.Officer Jam es Bernat testified that m any prefer to stay hom eless even ifthey can obtain available shelter due to m entalillness,substance abuse issues,and other reasons. Judge Leifm an,a w itness for the Plaintiffs,also contirm ed the change in the type ofhom eless individuals now versus tw enty years ago.Shelters are controlled environm ents with nzles,which 13 m any hom eless individuals do not want to follow.A majority of the unsheltered homeless population are <ichronic homelesss''meaning they have been living cm the streetsfor365 daysor more,orthey experiencefourinstancesofhomelessnessin athree-yearperiod.(Tr.vol.2,17). About67-69% ofthe hom eless population is chronically hom eless.Id This isa population that is shelter-resistant and would benefit from a Housing First program ,which is not a shelter facility,butratheran individualized home.1d.Thispopulation needsto be incentivized to seek housing. M r. Book testified that allowing street feedings and panhandling, as well as the Pottingeragreement,itself,a11makeitharderto getthe chronically hom elessinto the continuum of care. ld at 17. The County and Jackson M em orial Hospital gave $42 million for the construction ofa new facility on 7th Avenue and 22nd streetin the City ofM iam ito help this population.ln addition,there is acity-owned property around thatfacility,and a desireto build thousandsofnew unitsoflow-incomeaffordablehousing forthechronicallyhomeless.(Tr.vol. 4,25-26). There is agreem entthatmany cllronically hom eless suffer from mentalillness.In 2000, Judge Leifm an convened a summ itto address how to betterhandle m entalhealth issuesin the criminalcourt.(Tr.vol.4,2).Thesummitdevisedapre-andpost-arrestdiversion system.Asa result,M iami-Dade County hasthe largestsquad ofofticerstrained in CrisisIntervention Team policing.ld The program provides training for law enforcementthatteaches them to identify people in crisis,how to deescalate a situation,how to BakerAct9individuals,and whereto take them .Theprogram sprovide an alternativeto arrest.Id The sum mit also setup post-arrestdiversion program s for people with serious mental illness who get arrested,one for m isdemeanants,one for non-violent felonies, and one for 9TheFloridaM entalHealthAct,commonlyknown astheBakerAct,allowsfortheinvoluntaryinstitutionalization and examinationofan individual.Judges,law enforcement,physicians,and mentalhealth professionalscan initiate theprocess.j394.463,Fla.Stat. l4 competency restoration.1d.at 3. The successofthose programs is evidenced in the statistics. Csgl3letween2010and2017,theCityofM iamiandM iami-DadePoliceDepartmentls)combined, handled 83,427 m ental illness calls and only m ade 149 arrests.''1d.The recidivism rate has dropped from 72 to 20 percentin the m isdem eanorprogram and the felony program has saved the County çéabout68 yearsofjailbed dayswith a1ow recidivism rate.''1d.The Competency Restoration Alternative Program helpsindividualsgetservicesasopposed to being sentback to the street withoutassistance.1d.Before these program s started,there were two shootings per m onth ofpeoplewith m entalillnesses.Id at19.Now,there have been tiveorsix in eightyears. Policeinjuriesofmentallyi11peoplehasalmostcompletely vanished and ktoutof5,200 callsin the City ofM iamilastyearthere were six arrests.''1d. W hen a m entally i11hom eless person windsup in court,thestatecourtcallstheGreen Shirtsto aid thehom elessindividual.1d.at33. The Green Shirts are also involved in the U niversity of M iam i's N eedle Exchange Program . Dr. Edward Suarez testified that it is Florida's tirst and only syringe exchange program. (Tr.vol.2,92,96).Aspartofhiswork and dueto histraining in crisisintervention, Dr.Suarez can Baker Actwhen he sees an Ssindividualwho's floridly psychotic,responding to internalstimulation ...hasn'teaten,hasn'tdrank,nottaking careofhim self,isbeing adangerto them selves by way ofself-neglect...to the pointof self-harm .''f#.at 98.Atthatpoint,Dr. Suarez can calla City ofM iam iNeighborhood Resource Officerto transportthe individualto Jackson Crisis,and that individual gets housed.Id at 99.He says that he has a symbiotic relationshipwiththeCity ofMiamipoliceandtothatend,hetestifiedthatldwhenever(thepolice oroutreach personnel)getintoajam,beforethey commitanything - whatever,beforethey put any handson anybody or anything ofthat sol' t,1 geta phone call''seeking advice and assistance sinceheisfam iliarwith m any hom elessindividuals.1d. 15 The objective oftheNeedle Exchange Program isto testthehomelessindividualsfor HlV and HepatitisC.W hen homelessindividualstestpositively forHIV,Dr.Suarez startsHIV medicationthatsam eday.ld.at106.Hethen goesoutto find thatperson in thestreet,dayslater, to remind them to refilltheirm edications.Id The City ofM iamiaids in the processby helping Dr.suarezlocate individualsand place them into shelters.lo16i at107,120. Once the individual isin a shelter,Dr.Suarez can getthatperson into H1V care,andthatperson willhaveadedicated spaceto storetheHlV medication.f#.at107. B.OutreachEffortsandProceduresRegardingProperty The Consent Decree contains a section titled' .tsDisposition of Property Belonging to Hom elessPerson who isarrested.''Itstates: TheCity shallrespectthepersonalproperty ofal1hom elesspeople. The Miami Police Department (and al1 other Departments includingbutnotlimitedtoParksand Recreation and SolidW aste) shall follow their own internal procedures for taking custody of personalproperty. ln no event,shallany city officialorworker destroy any personal property known to belong to a homeless person,or readily recognizable as property of a homeless person (i.e. bedding or clothing and other bclongings organized or packaged togetherin away indicating ithasnotbeen abandoned), except as is permissible by law and in accordance with the departm ent's operating procedure, or if the property is contam inated orotherwise posesahealth hazardto City workersor to m em bersofthe public. (Def.Exh.1at12).ThissectionplacestworequirementsontheCitydepartmentswithregardto propertyofhomelessindividuals:(1)alldepartmentsmustttfollow theirown internalprocedures for taking custody of personalproperty,''and (2) no City employee may destroy property belonging to homeless individuals except where perm itted by law, or if the property is contam inated.The evidence showed thatthe City outreach workers follow internalprocedures, albeitunwritten ones,forthehandling ofproperty.ThePottinger Agreem entdid notrequirethe 10Dr.suareztestifiedthatGreenShirtW illieRachelhelpshim locatetheseindividuals.(Tr.vol.2at102,107). City to have written procedures for the handling ofproperty.Although a m itten protocol is preferable and has finally been prepared,it is important to note thatin the twenty years that Pottingerhasbeen in placethere hasnotbeen a com plaintregarding thehandling ofproperty or alack ofwritten proceduresuntilnow . W hen an outreach workerassistsa homelessindividualinto ashelter,the workerfollows a procedure to dealwith the property.(Tr.vol.1,248-49,254).W hen a homelessindividual accepts an offer of shelter from an outreach worker,the outreach team assists him in storing bulkierproperty thatthe individualcannottake into a shelter.(Tr.vol.6,44).The homeless person entering a sheltertakesthe belongings he m ay wantto keep,and the outreach w orkerw ill item ize therestofthe itemson a receipt,which the outreach workerthen givesto the hom eless individual.Id The outreach workerthen takes thatproperty to the City's storage unit.Id This same protocolwould be used when encountering abandoned property in the streets.Id at46-47. ln thatsituation,the outreach workerwillgo tlzrough the property and separate item s ofvalue, including documentation,medication,phones, or pictures.f#. The outreach worker itemizes those thingsand putsthem in abagto taketo storage.1d.Theoutreach workeralso leavesanote on the site where the things were located so thatthe individualknowsthathisbelongings were gatheredby theoutreachteam .ld;(Def.Exh.28)(photographsofnoteson fences).Thenotice contains an address and phone number where the homeless can retrieve theirproperty.1d.The departm entstoresthe property as long asthere isspace,and in reality,hasnotthrown anything away.(Tr.vol.6,48-49).The outreach team patrolsthose areasfordayswhere the property w ould be taken in the event som eone is looking for his belongings. 1d. at 46-47. Only one hom eless person,Robert Rhodes, testified that he attem pted to retrieve his property from the facility,andwasunabletodoso.(Tr.vol.3,17-18). 2018 Clean-ups The City outreach workers unquestionably began clean-up efforts in the downtown M iam iarea in 2018 due to health and sanitation concernsfrom the homelessencam pments.The City M anager Emilio Gonzalez coordinated various city departm ents to target and clean up hotspots.Hisdirection to clean these areasindicatesthatthe work should be done in accordance with thePottingerAgreement.(Pl.Ex.601-65).Plaintiffsclaim M r.Gonzalez'sdirective was the beginning ofacoordinated attemptto disperse the hom elessfrom the downtown M iam iarea and resulted in a violation ofconstitutionalrights.Evidenceshowed thatthe City'seffortswere, atleastin some part,dueto complaintsithad received from residents.The Plaintiffs rely on an em ailfrom M ilton Vickers,SpecialAssistantto theCity M anager,to m akethispoint.Thetextof theemailfrom M ilton Vickersto Police ChiefColinareads: ChiefColina,the Hom eless Outreach staffhave developed a plan to address hom eless encam pm ents and unattended contaminated item s. Itisimperativethatthisbecoordinated with policein these locations and be patrolled in the future to ensure that hom eless individuals do not return to these locations. The Homeless O utreach staff w ill be in full com pliance w ith the Pottinger Agreem ent.Please seethreadbelow . (Pl.Exh.601-65 at1);(Tr.vol.1,82).TheDeputy City Attorney Barnaby M in also wrotean em ailto other Assistant City Attorneys requesting thatthey follow-up with M ilton Vickers to makesuretheclean-upswerePottingercompliant.(P1.Exh.601-4).The evidence showed that the City tried to relocate the individuals that were living in the clean-up areas to available sheltersandthatindividualsreturned to thespotsaftertheclean-ups.(Tr.vol.3,13)(Testimony ofRobertRhodes)(stating hewalkeddown thestreetwith hisbelongingswhiletheCitypower washedthestreetand hereturnedlaterthatafternoon and sleptin thesamelocationthatnight.). Thatthe City w anted to preventthe squalor and unsanitary conditions from re-m anifesting after com pleting a clean-up is not a Pottinger violation. R ather, the clean-up effol'ts inure to the l8 benetitofthe homeless sleeping on the sidewalks.Overall,the evidence showed the City was working to clean thestreetsforthepublicwelfare,while also meeting itsPottingerobligations. On September19,2018,the Florida DepartmentofHealth notitied the City ofa specific area of concern located betw een 13th and 14th Streets and betw een N W 1Stand 2nd Avenues in Overtown,aneighborhood in M iam inorth ofthedowntown area.The Departmentindicated that theseareaswereasignificantpublichealth concernandwerebeinginvestigated.(D.E.658-1).11 The clean-up had to be handled with the assistance ofa specialized biohazard waste clean-up crew.Video evidence showed hum an feces,rats,and contam inated item s in the area.Judge Leifm an testified that he observed this site underthe expressway overpass,in the Overtown section ofM iami,which hedescribed asa publichealth crisis.(Tr.vol.4,12).ddltwaslike a horrormovie.There were a 1otofwomen using rightin frontofus.There were needleshanging outof differentparts oftheir body.M any were collapsed lying on the streethalfnaked.There were ratsrulm ing around,there were needleseverywhere.ltwasan Opioid den ...There wasa big concern thatifwe disturbed the site too quickly those illnesses would spread.''Id Judge Leifm an testified thata young boy waswalking through the areaon hisway to schooland gothis hands on fentanyland died.Id at21.Despite the gravity ofthe situation,there was notone arrest.ld at 15,20.W ith regards to this site,Judge Leifm an testified that30 people w ere m oved into treatment within a week and property was appropriately taken.He did n0t witness City officials seizing and destroying personal property.ld at 20. He noted that from what he obselwed,however,thatm attressesand whateverelse wasbeing used for sleep were notfitfor human use.1d.Dr.Suarez wasalso involvedin thisclean-up ofthisOvertown site.(Tr.vol.2, l10).Once itwas clearthatthere was an H1V network,Dr.Suarez stated thatCity workers 1lTheCityfiledamotionforjudicialnoticeoftheFloridaDepartmentofHealthletter.ThePlaintiffdidnotoppose therequestasto thisparticulardocumentandthemotion isgranted asto thisdocument. understood thatthe homeless individualsin thisarea could notbe dispersed and thatwhen the appropriatetim ecam e,they would work to getthepeopleinto shelters.ld at111. TheCity protocolforexecuting theclean-upsincludesposting noticesatleastseven days priortotheclean-up.(Tr.vol.1,235-36;216-17);(Tr.vol.2,65).lnthetwoweeksleadingupto a clean-up,the City outreach workers would provide increased efforts to place the individuals livingin certain areasofdowntown in available shelters.ld ;(Tr.vol.6,43).CamillusHouse ensurestherearebedsavailablewhentheoutreachteamsidentify areasforclean-ups.(Tr.vol.2, 64).Theevidenceshowed thereisdaily engagement,which meansthatthe outreach teamsgo out daily at different times to offer individuals placem ent opportunities as often as possible before the clean-up.lz (Tr.vol.2,65-66);(Tr.vol.6,43-45).M uch like the City's general protocolforhandling property,the outreach workersfollowed the same procedure during cleanups. If the outreach workers identify anything im portant - such as identifcation cards or medications- they inventory and store the property.They discard contaminated property.(Tr. vol.1,248-49).Theoutreachworkersleaveanoticeforpropertytheytaketo storageordiscard. (Tr.vol.2,65);(Def.Exh.28).ThePlaintiffsdisputethatthesenoteswereleftand arguethere wasno guaranteethatthe owneroftheproperty would receivethesenotes.Theevidenceshowed a few exampleswhere the handwritten noteswere placed on a fence,such thatthey would not easily blow away.Thehandwritten notesprovided an addresswheretheCity took theunattended personalproperty.ld. testified about the clean-ups stating that the team comes with Dr. Edward Suarez Skengagementtools:bottles ofwater,food,blankets.W e do notgo in there with the idea of... dispersingorkickingpeopleoutbecausethatdoesn'thelp.Thatjustspreadstheproblem across the city, and we use engagement tools to build rapport. So the clean-up is really rapport 12Clean-upsarealsoreferredto asencampmentclosuresontherecord.(Tr.vol.2,64). 20 building.''(Tr.vol.2,103).Dr.Suarezexplained thathe showsup with the City employeesto perform the clean-up and they ask the individualsto m ove.They offerthem clean clothes.W hile the clean-up isgoing on,theindividualsare offered detox atBanyan Behavioralorshelterbeds. They work with Camillus and the Hom eless Trust to enslzre there are shelter beds available during a clean-up.Id.atl04-105.He also testified thatthey ask individualsto çsmove foralittle bituntilweclean everything,and they'remore than welcom eto com eback to thatspot.''ld Plaintiffspresented the testimony ofoverthirty hom elessindividuals,including the class representative David Peery.Cumulatively,the hom eless witnessestestified aboutwhatoccurred during the clean-ups.l3The Plaintiffspresented testim ony thatthe clean-ups in the Lot 16 area would start very early in the morning. That appears reasonable so as not to impede both vehicularand pedestrian traffic,which increasestremendously asthousandsofem ployeescom e to work before 8:00 a.m .The homelesswitnessestestified thatofficers and Green Shirts would sound loud noises, shine bright lights, and request the homeless, who are sleeping on the sidewalks,moveso thattheycouldpressureclean thesidewalks.(Tr.vol.3,12,42,76).Officer Jose Galvez,who w orks with the City's N eighborhood Enhancem ent Team ,testified regarding the clean-ups.As a neighborhood resource officer,he goes to com m unity m eetings to address issuesinthedowntownM iamiarea.(Tr.vol.1,203).OfficerGalveztestifiedthattheCity starts theclean-upsearly in themorning before 8 a.m .ld at204.TheN eighborhood Solidwasteteams drive trucksto collectbulky item sin the streetsoron thecurb.ld at207. The mannerthatthe City handled personalproperty during the clean-ups is vehem ently contested in this proceeding.W hen property is found,the N eighborhood Solid W aste tenm w ill 13Thereareafew areaswheretheclean-upsoccurred:l)thedowntownareaknownasLotl6,amunicipalparking loteastoftheM iam iRiverunderthe1-95underpass,bounded bytheM iam iRiveron theeast,S.W .1StStreetonthe north,andS.W .3rdstreetonthesouth;2)Overtownareaunderthe1-395overpassonN.W .11'hand 13t hstreets betweenN.W .15tand2ndAvenues;3)thedowntown areabytheold Macy'son Flaglerstreet;4)N.W .6thstreetby thenew Brightlinestationandoneblockfrom thiscourthouse;4)thedowntownareabyGovernmentCenteracross thestreetfrom thiscourthouse;and5)PeacockParkinCoconutGrove. take contaminated unattended property,such ascans,food,orsoiled sheets.f#.at210.Officer Galvez said the team doesnotdiscard abandoned bookbags,which he saysare leftin them iddle ofeverything.ld.ln video footage,theCourtobserved theofficersplacing sheetsand m attresses, and trash bags in a pile to be discarded.Again,such actions appear reasonable due to the evidence ofcontam ination and the spread ofdiseases.However,unattended bicycles,which pose no such health risk,were leftby the clean-up crewson the street.OfficerGalvez testified about the need to pressure wash the streeton 1st Streetand Southwest2nd Avenue,because ofthe am ount of human feces,urine, and contam inated sheets in the area.1d. at 213.During the pressure washing,thehom elesswereasked to move,even ifthey were sleeping,and many went across the streetto an em pty parking lot.1d.at214.They were again offered available shelter, which is corroborated by the testimony ofHilda Fernandez,who testified thatCam illusHouse sets aside bedsduring clean-upsso thatthe affected individuals would have a place to go.Dr. Suarez also testified that affected individuals were offered an opportunity to go to a detox facility.(Tr.vol.2,64,105).TheNeighborhood Solid W asteteam discarded whateverproperty thehomelessno longerwantedto keep and would providebagssothey could carry theirpersonal belongings.(Tr.vol.1,215-216).OfticerGalvezcorroboratedthatnoticewouldbepostedfora clean-up,although he did notdo ithimself.1d.at216-17,219;(Tr.vol.3,89) (homeless individualtestifyingthatdsthereweresignsup sayingthattheyweregoingtobecleaning.''). Almostal1the hom elesswitnessestestified thatthey saw City workerstake property.A few testified thatthey personally witnessed either their own or other people's property being seized.Severalwitnesses testified generally thatthey had witnessed City ofM iam iemployees throwingunattended property into trucks.(Tr.vol.5,18).Forthemostpart,thetestimonywas that property was kicked around,thrown into piles,and then loaded into trucks when the hom elesswere notpresent,even ifthey had lefttheirbelongingsneatly by the side ofthe fence orin amalmerthatdidnotobstructthesidewalks.1d.;(Tr.vol.3,90).Somesaid they askedthe City fortheirproperty back,butthattheirrequestsweredenied.1d.at263-64.Plaintiffstestified to losing sm allitems,such as identifications,m edicine,eye glasses,cellularphones,personal notes from fam ily m embers, and photographs.1d. at 52-57, 83, 90-91, 113, 263.Various hom elesspersons,who losttheirproperty,testitied thatthey had leftitem sin eitherabackpack, bag,orsuitcase and positioned them outofthe way.1d.at44,193,222.Som e claim thatpolice and City workersdid notallow hom elesspeopleto retrieve and savetheproperty ofanotherfrom disposal during a clean-up operation.ld. at 76.For example,Eli Halter,a M arine veteran, testified,ifyou werenotthere,yourpropertywentintoapickuptruck.f#.at76, .(Tr.vol.4,18). RobertRhodes,however,testised thathe was able to grab the belongingsofhisneighbor,who sleptnextto him on the streetand leftshortly beforetheclean-up.(Tr.vol.3,15).Obviously, there isno excuseforthetaking ofidentification cards,medicine,eyeglasses,cellularphones,or photos,asthey,by them selves,do notpresenta health hazard.The dilemm a iswhatto do with those item s ifthey are comm ingled with backpacks,mattresses,sheets,food,etc.thatclearly pose health and security concerns.The solution to thisdilem ma isthatthese individuals should never abandon their identifications,prescriptions,eye glasses,orphones thatare so important. Rather,they should keep thoseitem swiththem when they areon them ove. Classrepresentative,David Peery,testified asto an incidentinvolving anotherwitness, W ilburCauley,which waspartiallyrecordedonavideo.(Tr.vol.5,35-36);(Pl.Exh.578-40-A). This incident occurred during a clean-up in the area of concez. n tlagged by the Florida D epartm ent of Hea1th in Overtow n. M r.Cauley's property w as up against a fence, neatly bundled.Plaintiffs introduced a photograph of the property,which showed its position and contents,includingapersonalbag.(P1.Ex.578-41-A).W hileM r.Cauleywenttoanearby store and lefthis property,a City worker kicked his property and then m oved it from its position againstthefenceintoapilewith otherproperty.(Tr.vol.3,88-89);(P1.Ex.578-40A).W henMr. Cauley returned to the sceneand saw hisproperty in the pile,the City workerdid notallow M r. Cauley to retrieve his property.Id The Courtagrees with the City's position that given the 'thorrormovie''conditions ofsqualor as described by Judge Leifman atthis location,itwould have been eminently difficult to discern contam inated property from sanitary property in this area. C.Ordersto M ove Plaintiffsfocuson ordersto homelessindividualsto Skmove on''by mem bers ofthe City ofM iam iPolice D epartm ent.The Courtagreesw ith the City thatordersto m ove during clean-up operationsare essentialto the public welfare and do notviolatePottinger.The evidence thatthe City roused the homeless from slumberin the early m ornings did notindicate the City workers intended to harass the hom eless.R ather than harassm ent,the intentw asto clear the areas w here the homelessspentthenightbefore the arrivalofvehicleand pedestrian traffic thatistypicalof mostcities.The Courtfindsthetestim ony ofDr.Suarez,who isnota City employee,credible as to how he observed the City workers treathom eless individuals to achieve the goals ofthe large- scalecleaning ofpublicareas.(Tr.vol.2,109)((1l'veneverseen them do any ofthesetypesof thingsthey'rebeingaccusedof.l'veonlyseenthem doitwithdignityandrespect....''). Putting aside the clean-up operations, Plaintiffs also provided evidence of instances where police ordered hom eless individuals to m ove.The Courtviewed a video taken by Java Brooks,whom policeasked to movefrom theareaby theo1d M acy'sin downtown Miami.(Pl. Exh.578-39). This incidentis admittedly underinvestigation by the City of M iamiPolice InternalAffairs to determine ifdiscipline iswarranted. (Tr.vol.1,88).RafaelVillalonga's incidentwasanother,where he wasasked to m ove from his area on Lot l6.Villalonga testified thathecomplied with therequest.There isno evidencethathewasthreatened with arrest.(Tr. vol.5,8-9). GuthrieChibanguzatestified thathewasorderedbythepoliceto leaveabusstop, andhewentacrossthe streetbyaFedEx office.(Tr.vol.3,96).W illieRichardson testifiedthat police made him get up and move.(Tr.vol.3, 101-102).The ConsentDecree,however, specifically prohibited arrests,and did notspecifically preventofficersfrom asking the homeless totemporarily relocate.Plaintiffsconceded atclosingargumentthatthe ConsentDecreedoesnot explicitly prohibit officers from ordering homeless individuals to m ove under certain circum stances.Plaintiffs,however,argue the ordersto move violated theirconstitutionalrights because the orderwasmeantto disperse them from particularlocations.There wasno evidence thatupon returning to a particular location afterm oving,orafter a clean-up,thatarrests were nnade. D.ArrestsofchetwynArcherand TabithaBass Atthe heartofthe Pottinger agreementisthe crim inalization ofhomelessness.To that end,the ConsentDecree doesnotpermitCity police to arresthomeless individuals engaged in life-sustaining misdem eanors without offering them available shelter. Plaintiffs presented evidence oftwo arrests m ade simultaneously of Chetwyn Archerand Tabitha Bass,neither of w hom testitied in this evidentiary hearing. Police arrested the tw o individuals for the misdemeanorofobstructing the sidewalk.(Pl.Exh.578-37,578-38)(police identified a crack pipeatthescene,butthearrestsdidnotappearto bedrug-related).Underthe2014 modification to the ConsentDecree,ksobstructing passage On sidewalks''is excepted from the listof çklife sustaining misdemeanorconduct''iftheentire sidewalk isobstructed andthepolicehasgiven the 25 individualapriorwarning aboutthe situation.Thebody cam era ofOfficerC.Gonzalez captured the arrests,however,the video did notshow whattranspired beforehand.The video beginsasthe arrestofChetwyn Archerisbeing initiated.The video showsa mattressobstructing the sidewalk and no passageway for pedestrians.The individuals' belongings,including garbage bags, a shopping cartfilled with clothing and blankets,and abicycleobstructthe passageway. The issues for the Court in these proceedings are whether the City of M iam i has substantially complied with the purpose of the Consent Decree,such that federal oversight should end,orwhetherthe Plaintiffshave mettheirburden to show the City should be found in civilcontempt. 111.CON CLUSIONS OF LAW Districtcourtsare empowered to m odify orvacateconsentdecrees.H ornev.Flores,557 U.S.433,447(2009).TheCity arguesthatabsentsystemicviolationsof42U.S.C.j 1983andin light of policy and practice changes concerning the homeless,continued enforcem ent of the PottingerConsentDecree isinequitable.Plaintiffsargue the City continues to violate the terms ofthe D ecree. W.TerminationoftheConsentDecree A party seeking termination ofa consentdecree bearsthe burden to show Cça significant changein eitherfactualconditionsorthelaw.''Rufo v.InmatesofsuffolkCt??znl Jail,502 U.S. 367,384 (1992)(relyingonFed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(5)).TheSupremeCourthasacknowledgedthat consentdccrees Ciare not intended to operate in perpetuity''and calmotcondemn an agency to ijudicialtutelage fortheindefinitefuture.''#J.ofEduc.ofOklahoma Cffy Pub.Sch.v.Dowell, 498U.S.237,249(1991)(schooldesegregation). To determ ine whetherto term inatea consentdecree,the Courtm ustfirstlook to thebasic purposeofthedecree.UnitedStatesv.City ofM iami,2 F.3d 1497,1504 (11th Cir.1993)(citing Dowelo.Then,theCourtmustdeterminewhetherthereisissubstantialcompliance.''Thatmeans the Courtm ust determ ine whether the City of M iam ihas com plied in good faith w ith the core purpose of the decree,w hether the pup oses of the litigation have,to the extent practical,been achieved,and whether itis necessary or sensible,under current circum stances,for the Courtto continue to exercisejudicialoversight.ld ,2 F.3d at 1508 (consentdecree addressed underrepresentationofwomenandminoritiesin City'sworkforce). The Eleventh Circuit provided additional guidance w hen it stated that district courts should term inate consentdecreeswhen the system had idundergone radicalchanges and was on secure footing to continue its progress in the years to com e, w ithout court supervision,'' notwithstanding the factthatthe system isiknotyetperfectand m ay neverbe.''A.C. v. Walley, 270 F.App'x 989,992 (11th Cir.2008).In sodoing,thisCourtmay rely onthestate'sdshistory ofgood faith and itspresentcommitmentto rem edying remaining problem s.''1d.tsFederalcourts should notbe in thebusinessofrunning importantfunctionsofstategovernmentfordecadesata time.''1d.(quoting Reynolds v.Mclnnes,338 F.3d 1201,1219 (11th Cir.2003)).lfthis Court determinesthatthe City hasimplemented adurable remedy,continued enforcem entisimproper. Horne,557U.S.at450 (stating thatfederalcourtdecreesexceed appropriate limitsifthey are aimedateliminatingaconditionthatdoesnotviolatefederallaw). Federalism concerns also exist in institutionalreform litigation,such as this,w here core areas of state responsibility are involved.H orne, 557 U .S. at 448. The Suprem e Court has acknowledgedthatSlinjunctionsissued in such casesoften remain in force formany years,and the passage of time frequently brings about changed circum stances 27 that warrant reexamination ofthe originaljudgment.''1d.at447-48.The SupremeCourthasalso noted that dûthe dynnm icsofinstitutionalreform litigation differfrom those ofothercases,''where,ttpublic officialssometim esconsentto,orrefrain from vigorously opposing,decreesthatgo wellbeyond whatisrequiredby federallaw.''f#.çilnjunctionsofthissortbind stateand localofficialstothe policy preferences oftheirpredecessorsand m ay thereby im properly deprive future officialsof theirdesignated legislative and executivepowers.''1d.at449. Itis wellbeyond dispute thatthere have been changed circum stances since the startof Pottinger.As detailed,supra,changes in police work,technology,and m ostimportantly the implementation ofa dedicated source offunding to the tune of$60 m illion dollars ayearto aid thehomelessin thiscomm unity sufficiently establish thattheconditionsin place when Pottinger was filed 30 years ago,and even when the ConsentDecree wasentered in 1998,are no longer the case.The evidence showed thatthe continuum ofcare available to homelessindividuals in M iam i-Dade County isunparalleled in theUnited States.And,thenumbersprove it.Theam ount ofhom elessindividualsin M iamihasplumm eted 90% sincePottingerwasentered.Thenumber ofarrestshasalso decreased asexplained by Judge Leifm an. The dispute in thiscase centers on whetherthe City has substantially complied with the corepurpose ofthe PottingerAgreem ent,and the Plaintiffsclaim thatthe City hasnotdueto its actions in cleaning up homeless encam pments starting in 2018.14 There is no question after hearing the testim ony and view ing the video evidence thatthe City w as com pelled by the gravity oftheunsanitary and unhygienicconditionsto literally clean the streetsforthe betterm entofthe com m on welfare,including the hom eless,the City'sresidents,and its businesses. SubstantialComplianceby thePoliceDepartment 14PlaintiffshavenotyreviouslyfiledamotiontoenforcetheagreementortoholdtheCityincontempt.Plaintiffs' counsellikened thesltuation toaprobation violation thatoccursahersometim e,butisstillpunishable. 28 There can be no doubtthatthe core purpose oîPottinger wasto stop thecrim inalization ofhom elessness.The prim ary goalofthislitigation and the ConsentDecree wasto prohibitthe City of M iami Police Departm ent from arresting homeless individuals for engaging in lifesustaining conductmisdem eanors.'sBecause Pottingerprohibited arrestas a solution to getthe hom elessoffthe streets,the City and the comm unity,atlarge,developed a m yriad ofprogram s that City Police could tap into when interacting with the hom eless.The County's Homeless Trust,the recipientof$60 m illion in tax revenue a year,providesfunding and Camillus House, the Chapm an Partnership,and Lotus H ouse provide shelter,m edicalcare,and other services to the hom eless in our comm unity. The state courtsystem ,through Judge Leifm an,developed diversionprogramstoavoidputtingthementallyillinjails.Thewholesystem,describedsupra, and known asthe continuum ofcare hasprovided an outstanding supportnetwork forthe City police and other outreach workers. There can be no doubt that the prim ary purpose of the agreem ent,to stop the arrests ofthe hom eless forbeing hom eless,has been achieved. The Court findsthatthecontinuum ofcare isexactly the type ofdurable remedy thatrequiresthis Courtto cease itsoversightoftheseprim arily state functions.Thisisnotto say thatmore cannotbedone to achieve the goaloferadicating hom elessness.The goalofthe ConsentDecree,however,was notto solvehom elessness.Rather,thegoalofthe ConsentDecreewasto reform themannerthat City Police treated thehomeless.Thatgoalhasbeen achieved to the creditofallthe individuals, particularly in thislitigation. 15In fact,theclasscertified byJudgeAtkinsincludestçhom elesspersons...whohavebeen,expecttobe,orw illbe arrested,harassed,orotherwiseinterfered withby membersoftheCityofM iam iPoliceDepartmentforengaging in theordinary andessentialactivitiesofdaily livinginpublicduetothelack ofotheradequatealternatives.''Pottinger v.Cit fMiami,720F.Supp.955,959(S.D.Fla.l989).TheConsentDecreefocusesalmostentirelyonthe .vo implementation oftraining,policiesandproceduresto ensurethatthepolicedepartm entengagedw ith thehomeless population in ahumanemannerand withintheboundsoftheconstitution.(Def.Exh.1). 29 Plaintiffs'evidence,in this case,of two arrests that purportedly violated Pottinger is insufficient to convince this Court that a durable rem edy is not in place. The overwhelm ing evidence supports the finding thatCity police willnotrevertto arresting individuals,because they have an ample supportnetwork to turn to in handling difficultsituations.(Testimony of Ronald L.Book)(Tr.vol.2,18)($igTJheCityclearlyunderstandstheneed to treatthehomeless population w ith respectand w ith dignity and with a desire to puta pennanentend to itand thatis our goal and 1 think that's ourjoint goal.1 don't see that changing should Pottinger be discontinued.''). The evidence also showed that for those chronically homeless individuals,Pottinger, serves as a crutch enabling them to avoid entering the continuum ofcare. The video ofJava Brookswasem blem atic ofthiswhere she basically tlaunted the City police,who ordered herto move,when she said she wasaware ofherrights.She showed littleincentive to try to getoffthe streets.Thetestimony ofRonald Book,Chairm an ofthe HomelessTrust,exemplified thispoint, when he wasdiscussing the cllronically homeless population.He said the chronically homeless are lsshelterresistant...ifyou m akeiteasierforthem to be on the streets,they're notcoming in. lt's why we don't support street feedings.lt's why we don't supportpanhandling.I believe Pottinger atthis point,m y opinion,is thatcontinuation doesn'tm ake iteasier for us,itm akes it harderforusto tinish w hat'soutthere because it's chronic.''Id at 17. Likew ise,Pottinger hasa chilling effecton an officer'sability to provide aid to the hom eless.D r.Suarez said itbest,when hesaidS'it'sjustsadto seethatwe'restillstuck in thepastand 1seetheofficersarehandcuffed by this. A nd I think that m ightbe why subconsciously 1 brought up that young officer saying tl'm going to be on YouTube by the end ofthe day.'lthink that'sPottinger ...getting in her 30 wayofdoingtherightthingbecausesheisafraidforherself,andIcan'tblameherforthat.''(Tr. vol.2,116). N ot only has the City substantially com plied with the main purpose of Pottinger regarding arrests,the City Police Departm enthasim plem ented the required training as setforth in section IV ofthe ConsentDecree,which nowadaysincludes scenario based training.(Def. Exh.95,95A).TheCityalsocomplieswith itsdepartmentalordersandpoliceofficers,whofail to comply,are subjectto investigation by InternalAffairs and discipline. The Departmental Orderismodeled aftertheprotocolin Section V1lofthe settlementagreem ent. The Departm entalOrder also contains specitic directives as to how the police should handle property.W hile the Plaintiffs'evidence regarding the loss ofproperty during clean-ups often reflected apolicepresence,there wasno evidencethatany City ofM iamipolice destroyed orseized property and there areno internalaffairsinvestigationson the record in thisregard. Finally,the police implemented a system to docum ent interactions with the homeless know n asField lnform ation Cards,which are used in cases where there is no arrest.Those form s are m aintained by the police as required by Section Vl11 of the Settlem ent Agrcem ent. Technology hascertainly rendered thisrequirem entobsolete. The question that remains is whether the evidence of police ordering hom eless individuals to move negates a finding a substantial compliance. Java Brooks and Rafael Villalongatestifedthatthe City Policetold them to move from where they were staying atnight, withoutcause and withoutoffering shelter.Likewise,Guthrie Chibanguza testified thathe was asked to leave abusstop,even though hehad a buspass,and hewalked acrossthe street.W illie Richardson testified thatpolice also ordered him to move.Plaintiffs cite City of Chicago v. M orales,527 U.S.41(1999)to arguethatthedirectiveto moveviolatesthehomelessperson's 31 fundamentalrightto travel.In C# of Chicago,the Supreme Coul' theld thatan ordinance violates the due process clause ofthe Fourteenth Am endm entwhere it prohibited street gang m em bers from loitering in a public place.To enforce the ordinance,the officers could order the gang m embersto disperse,and a failureto comply would be groundsforarrest.1d.,527 U.S.at 50.The Suprem e Courtfound the ordinance unconstitutionally vague as to w hat conduct was proscribed.1d.at53.In so holding,the Suprem eCourtstated thatSûfreedom to loiterforirmocent purposes is part of the Sliberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Am endm ent.'' Id Plaintiffs,however,do notlose theirconstitutionalrights by termination ofthe Consent Decree.Itbearsnoting thatno othermunicipality in Miami-DadeCounty's34 issubjectto the Pottinger Agreementexceptforthe City ofM iam i.And,individualsin M iam i-Dade County are notgaining greater constitutionalprotections when they cross from M iam iBeach into M iam i. The issue here iswhetherthere has been substantialcompliance with the tenets ofthe Consent Decree. The basic tenets of the ConsentDecree prohibit Starrest or detention''of hom eless individualsnotengaged in any crim inalactivity.Neithertook place here.The Courtdoes not find the evidence ofthese four instances where individuals were ordered to move negates a findingofsubstantialcompliance.SubstantialcomplianceSfimpllieslsomething lessthanastrict and literalcompliance with the contractprovisionsbutfundam entally itmeansthatthe deviation isunintentionaland sominorortrivialasnotisubstantiallyto defeattheobjectwhichtheparties intend to accomplish.'''WellsBenz,Inc.v.US.forUseofM ercury Elec.Co.,333 F.2d 89,92 (9thCir.1964)(citationsomitted).Theallegedactionsofafew policeofficersdonotconstitute the type ofdeviation necessary to find a lack ofsubstantialcom pliance,especially w here there is no evidenceofarrestand thecircum stancesunderwhich thepoliceissued thedirectivesto move arC unClear.16 J.SubstantialComplianceby otherCily Departments This institutionalreform litigation soughtto revam p police interactions with the City's homelesspopulation. 1tseffects,howevtr,are seen throughoutthe City ofM iam i's government departm ents.There are three sentences in the Settlem ent Agreementthat address property of hom elessindividuals and are written so asto encompassotherCity departm ents,in addition to the police. Thatprovision,supra, requires City departm ents to respect the property of the hom eless and to follow their own internalprocedures for taking custody ofproperty, lt also prohibits city departments from destroying property except as allowed by law , or where the property iscontaminated orposesahealthrisk. (Def.Exh.1at12-13).Plaintiffsarguethatthe City'sfailure to have m itten proceduresequateswith noncompliance. The agreem ent,however, functioned fortwenty yearswithoutincidentand atno tim e did the Plaintiffs complain abouta lack ofwritten procedures.The testimony from the City outreach m anagers, Sergio Torres and David Rosem ond,wasconsistenton the proceduresthe City workersemploy to determ ine when and how to take property.The testim ony also show ed that the D epartm ent of V eterans A ffairs and HomelessServices,now the Departmentof Hum an Services, trains the otherrelevantCity departm ents, such as the Parks and Recreation Departm ent,on the procedures. (Def.Ex.39). W ith respectto section Vl1(F)ofthe ConsentDecree,the Courtfindsthe City in substantial compliance. Plaintiffs presented testim ony of m any hom eless individuals regarding the taking of property during the 2018 clean-up operations that took place in D ow ntow n M iam i and 16Indeed, ChiefColinatestified thattheCity wasinvestigatingtheinstancew ith JavaBrookstodeterm inewhether theCity woulddisciplinethepoliceofficerforhisactions. Overtown.There isno question thatthe City exercised avalid governm entalpowerin addressing the sanitation and public health concerns created by the large encampments of hom eless congregating and living in certain areas of the City.Plaintiffs argue the City's actions during thoseclean-upsnegatea findingofsubstantialcompliance. The Citypresented ampleevidencethatnoticewasgiven in advance ofthe clean-upsand thatshelterbedswere seclzred to move people from those areasinto the continuum ofcare.The City's evidence was corroborated by Dr. Suarez and Hilda Fernandez, who both testified regardingtheirjointeffortsandworkwiththeCityinperformingtheclean-ups.Thetestimonyof the hom eless witnesses was thatifthey lefttheirbelongings unattended,they were gone when they returned. Some witnesses testified that they asked the City workers to recover their belongings,butwere denied those requests.Other witnesses,such as Robertlkhodes,testitied thathe was able to grab his neighbor's belongings during a clean-up.One witness,EliHalter, testified thatifyou wereattheclean-up,youhadtheability to moveyourstuff.(Tr.vol.3,76). This testimony is consistent with the inform ation provided by Dr.Suarez,Sergio Torres,and David Rosem ond regarding clean-up operations. Plaintiffs emphasize that the incident involving W ilbur Cauley's property shows the City'snoncompliance with the ConsentDecree. The incidentdescribed by W ilburCauley and David Peery,and shown in a video (D.E.578-40-A),took place in the area in Overtown underneath the1-395overpass.Judge Leifman describedthatareasaying digijtwasdangerousto putanythingon theground.You had to step around theneedlesand theratsthatwerealloverthe place.''(Tr.vol.4,34).Theevidenceshowedtheunsanitaryconditionsinthatlocation,anditis not difficultto extrapolate the potentialconsequences to the public health,w hich w ould lead a City w orker to discard m ore property than not,because he believed it to be contam inated. The 34 squalor present prevented the clean-ups from being easy operations where the City workers could examineitem soneby one. Unfortunately,som e medications, identitications,and personal notes w ere necessarily discarded in the process and the Courtsym pathizes with thatloss, butthe Courtcannot ignore thatthose item s w ere com m ingled w ith food, soiled m aterials,and grbage creating a public health crisis.The Courtnoted thatthe bicycles present were not discarded, presum ably because a bicycle doesnotpose a health orsafety risk. Thetestimony ofRonald L. Book exem plifesthe contentsofthe evidence. He said:çsNobody is evergoing to accuse m eof being anything otherthan compassionate and understanding as itrelatesto the plightofthose who liveon ourstreets,butoftentimesyou end up in situationswhere there'sbeen hoarding and it'smore garbagethan itisproperty ofvalue.''(Tr.vol.2,21).Therefore,theCourtconcludes the City hassubstantially complied with the ConsentDecree'sproperty provisions, even though there were instances during the clean-ups where City workers mistakenly discarded valuable item sdue to the gravity oftheunsanitary conditions. #. MotionforContempt lnjundions,such asConsentDecrees,areenforcedthrough thecivilcontemptpowerof the trialcourt. Reynolds v.G.M Roberts,207 F.3d 1288, 1298(11th Cir.2000).Plaintiffsbear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence thatthe City violated the Pottinger ConsentDecree.See Riccard v.PrudentialIns.Co., 307 F. 3d 1277,1296 (11th Cir.2002)(CtA finding ofcivilcontempt- willfuldisregard ofthe authority ofthe court- mustbe supported by clear and convincing evidence.'').To establish thataparty acted in contempt,theparty seeking thecontemptrulingmustshow by clearand convincingevideneethat:(1)theallegedlyviolated orderwasvalidandlawful,(2)theorderwasclearandunambiguous,and(3)theallegedviolator had the ability to comply with theorder. Id ;Wyattv.Rogers,92 F.3d 1074,1078n.8(11th Cir. 35 1996).lfthePlaintiffsdoso,theburdenshiftstotheDefendanttoshow thatithascompliedwith theinjunction,orwhyitshouldnotbeadjudgedincontempt.Reynolds,207F.3dat1298. Plaintiffs presented evidence ofthree differenttypes ofalleged violations to validate a finding ofcontempt. The firstgroup is the directives from police to hom eless individuals to move. Thesecond group isevidence relating to the taking ofpersonalproperty by City workers during clean-up operationsin 2018. The lastisthe arrestsofthe two individualsforobstruding the sidewalk. Although the ConsentDecree containsa generalrequirem entthatCity police notharass the hom eless,the ConsentDecree and Police Departm entalOrder 11 do notexplicitly prohibit the police from ordering homelesspersonsto m ove from theirlocations or from sounding loud noises to w ake people before a clean-up operation. It goes w ithout saying that directives to m ove during a clean-up operation are essential to facilitate the pressure washing of the sidewalks. Pressurt cleaning,while individuals are sleeping on the sidewalks,is obviously hazardousto theirsafety. And,notcleaning poseshealth hazardsto them and others.During the clean-up operations,the evidence showed that homeless individuals often m oved close by or l were offered shelter. Dr.Suarez testified thatthe team engagesany hom elessindividualatthe clean-up location,helpsthem to discard any garbage thathasaccum ulated around them , offers them cleanclothesandblankets.(Tr.vol.2,104).Theteam thenoffersshelterplacementand,if the offer for shelter is rejected, the tenm members ask the homeless person to relocate temporarily.1d.The City hasan interestin preserving thepublicwelfare,hygiene and sanitation. Itm akes sense and the evidence confirm ed that the City's intent w as to m ove these hom eless individuals,living in squalor and in encam pm ents,into the continuum of care. The Courtdoes notview the City's actions,in thisregard,to be a concerted plan to violate the hom elesscivil 36 rights. And,there is no clear and convincing evidence thatrequiring the homeless to move during clean-up operations was a violation of the Decree, especially because the evidence showed thatpeoplereturned to thelocationsaftertheclean-upsand no one wasarrested. As noted, supra, the Plaintiffs argue there are four instances, outside of a clean-up operations where the police were harassing hom eless individuals and ordering them to m ove, Java Brooks,RafaelVillalonga,Guthrie Chibanguza,and W illie Richardson. Other than the generalprohibition on harassm entcontained in ConsentDecree,there isnothing in the Consent Decree or in the Police Departmental Order 11 specifically precluding a police officer from instructing som eone to m ove.M oreover, the testimony from the witnesses and the video evidence did not show the underlying circum stances under which the officers issued the directives. To find civilcontempt,the Courtm usttind by clearand convincing evidencethatthe Pottinger Agreem ent clearly and unambiguously said that officers could not ask homeless individuals to move or the evidence mustshow that the police officers were harassing these individuals.The evidence does notestablish a violation of the D ecree's general statem entthat the police notharass the hom eless.Therefoze,the standard forcivilcontem ptisnotm et. The Plaintiffs also seek to hold the City in contem ptdue to their handling of hom eless individuals'personalproperty.A gain,the Pottinger A greem entallow s ofticers and City workers to take tm attended property in accordance w ith their internal procedures and discard property thatis contaminated.The ConsentDecree also contains a generalrequirementthatCity police and outreach workerstreattheproperty ofthe homelesswith respect. The majority ofPlaintiffs'witnessescomplained aboutthe handling ofproperty during clean-up operations.W itnesses testified thatworkersm oved in quickly and thatthey had little tim e to collecttheirbelongings.Hom eless individualstestified thatthey leftitem s in backpacks, 37 bags,and positioned outoftheway and thattheirproperty waskicked around, thrown into piles, and then loaded into trucksto be disposed.Plaintiffs'witnessesalso testified thatCity workers routinely did notallow hom elesspersons to retrieve and save the property ofanotherhomeless person from disposal.But,itwould be unreasonable for City workersto decide theircourse of action based on a non-owner's statement regarding abandoned property. The evidence also showed thatCity workerscom plied with theirprocedures, gave notice ahead oftim e,providtd outreach to affected individuals,gave homelesspersonsbagsto putaway theirbelongings, and left notes at the scene on the fences to let people know the location of property. Som e of Plaintiffs'own witnessestestified thatthey were ableto keep the property on them , and retrieve property belonging to others.The evidence also show ed the gravity ofthe circum stancesatthese clean-up spots,w hich has already been detailed in this order. Even assum ing that,at tim es,the City workers could have handled the homeless person's belongingsm ore delicately, the Court doesnotfind thata violation ofthe ConsentDecree occurred by clear and convincing evidence. The ConsentDecree allowsthe City workersto take property in a m anner consistentwith their procedures.The evidence showed that,atleastforthe m ostpart, that w as done,and to discard contam inated property. Deciphering whatisand isnotcontam inated inside abag isdifficultand going through a bag that possesses contnminated m aterials to fish out identifications and m edicationsisnotarequirem entofthe ConsentDecree. The evidencedid notshow an oftqceror a workertaking away identifications and m edications,rather it showed thatthose item s were unfortunately lost as part of a process of cleaning areas in desperate need of sanitation. The Courtdoesnothold the City in contemptforitshandling ofthepersonalbelongings. Finally,the Court,for reasons already detailed in this O rder, does notfind the tw o arrests are sufficient to m eet the standard that the City violated the decree and should be held in 38 contempt.There isno evidence asto whatpreceded the arrests,and as such,the standard for contem ptisnotm et. HeroesfortheHomeless Although the Plaintiffs have opposed the termination ofthis agreement,in a very real sense,they are the victors.Their lawsuit,and the work oftheirexcellentand capable counsel, under the guidance of the Americans Civil Liberties Union and the Florida Justice lnstitute, engendered a revolution in thiscom munity asto thetreatmentand care ofpersonsexperiencing hom elessness. Twenty years ago, the undersigned could not have predicted the m yriad of servicesm adepossible by theeffortsofthe Hom elessTrustand M r. Ronald L.Book. The Court could nothave envisioned the dedication of people,like Dr. Pedro Joe Greer and Dr.Edward Suarez,who have taken medicine to the streets ofM iam ito help people and gain theirtrustto im provetheircare.The lifetime ofwork by Cam illusCEO HildaFernandez iscomm endable as she has worked in a variety of roles to assistthe homeless and better their lives in a truly compassionate way.The work ofConstance Collins atthe LotusHouse has also contributed to aiding hom eless wom en and children and helped them find solutionsto homelessness. lt goes withoutsaying thatthis com munity owes a debtof gratitude to Judge Steve Leifm an, who has implemented sustainable program sto help the mentally ill, which willcontinue to im prove their circum stances.Sim ply put,Judge Atkins would be proud ofthe results. A ccordingly,itis ADJUDGED thatthe Courtterm inatestheConsentDecree and deniesthe motion to hold the City ofM iamiin contempt. DoxE AND ORDERED in chambersatM iam i,Florida,this f s '< ofFebruary2019 %. . * FEDER CO A .M O REN O UN ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT JU DG E Copies furnished to: CounselofRecord 40
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
