City attorney, council discuss limits on enforcing camping rules under new Florida law

Melbourne’s city attorney and staff used the workshop to explain recent ordinances the city has adopted to comply with state law and to outline how local enforcement interacts with court precedent and practical constraints.

What was presented: City Attorney Adam Connolly summarized recent actions: last autumn the city adopted an ordinance intended to implement Section 125.0231 of the Florida Statutes (often referenced as House Bill 1365 in the meeting) to address public camping and sleeping; council also recently adopted additional park conduct and public property camping language and expanded litter enforcement. Connolly told the council that the first phase of the Florida statute took effect earlier and the second phase took effect January 1, and staff corrected a reported typographical error in one section that referred incorrectly to park properties.

Property designation option and minimum requirements: Connolly and staff explained that the statute allows counties and municipalities to designate particular government‑owned properties for regulated outdoor camping, but only if certain minimum standards and proximity rules are met. The city attorney listed the statute’s program‑design elements as discussed in the meeting: the designated property must be city or county‑owned; it cannot be contiguous to land designated for residential uses on the comprehensive plan or future land‑use map; operations must establish minimum sanitation and safety standards (including access to clean toilets and running water), provide access to behavioral‑health services, prohibit and enforce illegal substance use, and limit continuous use to one year unless further findings support extension. The city attorney said such a designation also requires county agreement for properties within city boundaries.

Legal constraints and litigation risk: Connolly reviewed federal case law history referred to in the meeting. He said courts have in recent years scrutinized criminalization of sleeping in public when no alternatives exist, and while the U.S. Supreme Court last summer rejected the line of cases that treated such enforcement as an Eighth Amendment cruel‑and‑unusual‑punishment question, constitutional exposure remains. "When enforcement... ramps up, there is some legal exposure there for those potential constitutional claims," Connolly said on the record. He urged that enforcement of camping ordinances is "easier if there's an alternative place where we can offer people an opportunity to say, you can stop what you're doing. You can go to place A or you can go to place B." (paraphrasing city attorney language used in discussion.)

City code and housekeeping: Staff flagged a typographical error in the recently adopted code language (a clause referencing park properties that was meant to apply to all public properties) and noted the council will see a corrective ordinance. Council members asked whether the city had contacted the county about designating property; staff said not yet for Melbourne and that any designation inside city limits would require county coordination.

Ending: The city attorney and staff urged council to weigh enforcement choices against litigation risk and to consider whether the municipality should pursue designated sites with the county or collaborate with nonprofits to create operational alternatives before enforcement is increased.