Lacey Washington –  Lacey, Washington recently passed a controversial camping ordinance that targets camping and recreational vehicles in their community.  The ordinance targets camping vehicles, and camping gear pejoratively referred to as “Camping Paraphernalia” as if it were illegal to even own such items.

Not only was Lacey caught enforcing a wholeheartedly self destructive camping ordinance, it was documented on film.  This disingenuous ordinance also served to cost the community untold millions in consumer revenue during their summer festival season.  Several well known YouTube personalities were turned away from camping and providing hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS in FREE ADVERTISING!

Lacey, Washington lost the kind of genuine experience reactions that can’t be reproduced for any price.  All lost because City Leaders lacked the genuine courage to admit they have no use for homeless people and wish to judge people by the content of their wallets.  It’s perfectly legal to have a restrictive community.  There are several isolated communities that would love to help you bring the Deep South to the Deep West.  It’s not my thing personally, but if the people of your community feel that way, the Constitution protects such beliefs, repugnant as they are.

To their discredit, the Lacey, Washington Police Department doubled down on stupid by re-posting the statute that clearly calls out VERY SPECIFIC items of camping gear.  Equally clear and with WIDE latitude for glaringly ignorant mistakes of law to the true target of their open hostility, homeless camping.  Yet these preening frauds charged with a DUTY OF CARE lack the courage to speak honestly.  The Lacey, Washington Police Department and Lacey, Washington City Council are actively targeting homeless individuals, and low income populations deemed unfit for appearance within their jurisdiction.

This can be spun in a thousand different ways, but it’s still a targeted statute with a blind expectation that it’s enforcers tell the difference between a homeless person and a visiting camper. I’ve lived in my community for 5 years, and I still couldn’t pick our officers out of a lineup with a million dollars on the line. Furthermore, the ordinance expects virtuous conduct in the face of a clearly discriminatory ordinance rife with ambiguity.

This ordinance while targeting homeless camping is a regressive nod back to the days of tarry stops designed to target persons of color. This statute substitutes race for the content of a person’s wallet.

Extinguishing rumors Lacey P.D.?

I draw their uncomprehending eyes to 8.10.030, items B, C, D, E, and F.

B-  Any RV parked for lunch at local venue could be ticketed.  Travelers exiting I5, A MAJOR TRAVEL ROUTE!, could also be targeted.

C- Many of the listed items are commonly carried by recreational vehicles.  By that standard, a rear view mirror could be considered drug paraphernalia because some addicts do drugs off of mirrors.  (We call this OBVIOUS ambiguity) 

D-  See item B

E – See item C

F- In the case of recreational vehicles, you don’t have the power to blow the Transportation Secretary’s nose much less violate every statute related to interstate transportation and commerce.

Now I’m not suggesting Lacey Police and the Lacey City Council are attempting to legalize an ongoing criminal enterprise expressly forbidden by RICO statutes with a camping ordinance.  They merely passed a law making it perfectly legal to do so at a local level.  One can almost hear the Dukes Of Hazard theme playing while scanning for portly men in white suits.

This principle is illustrated through a resisting arrest charge standing when the predicating orders claimed as lawful were indeed not.

Ex: Claiming no filming from a safe distance then arresting for not following the alleged lawful order while claiming a resist charge for questioning the irrational behavior.  

Lacey, Washington leaders are full of crap and got caught.  Their best option is to man up and admit they got caught.  There is NO innocent mistake of law that can protect them.  SCOTUS only gave innocent mistakes of law, not obviously ignorant ones.