Denver criminal defense lawyer / criminalizing classes

I know I normally don't do news here on the Denver criminal defense lawyer blog, since I prefer to stick to stuff that's a little bit more practical. There was an interesting snippet in my RSS feed this morning, though. In the Post, I saw that the Supreme Court declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the City of Boulder's anti-camping ordinance. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had challenged it, arguing that it penalized a "class" of people. It is not legal for a case to punish a class of people--laws must criminalize specific acts. Although this is not something that a Denver criminal defense lawyer will come up against often in practice, it is still an important principle in criminal law practice.

Basically, it is a due process violation to make a law that punishes being part of a class of people. A class is really just a group where you can't leave the group or decide not to be part of it. So if the government made a law that no homosexuals could be on the 16th street mall between five and nine pm, the defendants' Denver criminal defense lawyer would have a strong argument that the law was unconstitutional. On the other hand, if a law criminalizes acts, a group of people predisposed to those acts is not a class that is being criminalized. For example, laws prohibiting heroin use do not criminalize the class of people "heroin addicts." Yes, heroin addicts are more likely to be punished under the law. But it is still an act that is being criminalized, not a class. Similarly, folks who use peyote as part of religious ceremonies are not having their class punished. The act of eating peyote is not considered an essential part of the ceremony (many people strongly disagree with this, but that's what the U.S. Supreme Court said). The homeless ordinance falls somewhere in the middle. You can see that poor people are basically the only people who will be busted for permitless camping. That's particularly true in the middle of the winter. On the other hand, the City isn't saying "you can't be homeless." It's at least on its face a rule against a specific act. So there are arguments on both sides.