On-the-ground enforcement: encampment clearances, targeted sweeps, local bans and surveillance on people living outside

On-the-ground Enforcement: Encampment Clearances, Targeted Sweeps, and Surveillance on People Living Outside

In 2024, cities across the United States and beyond continue to escalate their efforts to enforce laws targeting homelessness and public space use. These measures include large-scale encampment sweeps, the installation of surveillance infrastructure, and the implementation of local bans that criminalize survival behaviors. The focus remains on removing visible signs of homelessness, often at the expense of vulnerable populations’ safety and dignity.

City and Agency Actions to Sweep, Clear, or Restrict Encampments

Municipalities such as San Jose, Chico, and Atlanta are actively conducting large-scale sweeps of homeless encampments. For example, San Jose has announced plans to clear its largest homeless camp once again, citing safety concerns. Despite these justifications, critics argue that such operations merely displace residents into more hazardous environments without providing sustainable alternatives. Similarly, Chico is preparing to clear multiple locations, including the Chico Municipal Center, further disrupting the lives of unhoused individuals.

In Atlanta, authorities have closed the Bell Street encampment, displacing dozens of residents. These actions often follow quick notices, with belongings confiscated and residents displaced into unfamiliar or unsafe areas. Oklahoma and South Carolina are enacting legislation that criminalize camping and sleeping in public spaces, effectively making survival outdoors a punishable offense.

In Lansing, authorities recently evicted seven residents from a homeless camp located on a city-owned property, leaving displaced individuals without immediate shelter options. These operations, while framed as safety or sanitation measures, often exacerbate the vulnerabilities of those affected.

Use of Citations, Physical Barriers, Surveillance, and Local Rules

Law enforcement agencies are employing a variety of tactics to relocate or exclude unhoused populations:

• Citations and Fines: Minor infractions such as smoking outside a restaurant have resulted in citations for homeless individuals, exemplifying a punitive approach that targets poverty-related behaviors. In Santa Monica, a homeless man was cited for smoking outside a restaurant, illustrating how enforcement extends into everyday survival activities.

• Physical Barriers and Restrictions: Cities are installing barriers and enacting local rules that restrict sleeping outside or storing belongings in public spaces. For instance, Gloucestershire in the UK has banned sleeping outside an empty department store, criminalizing basic survival behaviors and pushing vulnerable populations into more hazardous conditions.

• Surveillance Technologies: The proliferation of surveillance infrastructure is a significant component of this enforcement strategy. In Owen Sound, approximately 70% of police FOI requests in 2025 pertained to accessing downtown camera footage, highlighting the increasing use of surveillance to monitor and target homeless populations. This expansion raises concerns about oversight, data security, and potential misuse of footage for targeted policing.

• Enhanced Police Powers: Efforts to broaden arrest and enforcement powers are underway. For example, Ontario has expanded arrest authority for transit constables, risking further criminalization of addiction and homelessness, especially in transit systems and downtown areas where confrontations with homeless individuals and activists are intensifying.

Human Costs and Human Rights Concerns

The aggressive enforcement and surveillance measures have severe human consequences. Encampment evictions displace individuals into unsafe environments, often with little to no alternative shelter, increasing their risk of injury, illness, or death. In San Jose, homeless fatalities have risen, attributed to displacement, loss of belongings, and reduced access to healthcare.

Fines for minor infractions highlight the punitive approach targeting impoverished populations. In Santa Monica, a homeless man was cited for smoking outside a restaurant, exemplifying how basic survival behaviors are criminalized. Such practices contribute to a cycle of displacement, trauma, and increased vulnerability.

Displacement also worsens health outcomes, with reports of rising homeless deaths linked directly to enforcement actions. For example, in San Jose, the increased frequency of sweeps and displacement correlates with spikes in homelessness-related fatalities, hypothermia, violence, and medical emergencies. The ongoing RV homelessness crisis worsens this scenario, as seniors living in RVs face forcible displacement from their temporary homes during crackdowns on unauthorized parking.

Legal and Policy Responses

While some courts are beginning to challenge enforcement-heavy policies—such as Los Angeles courts prohibiting encampment dismantling without due process and the U.S. Supreme Court upholding constitutional protections for panhandling—many jurisdictions continue to pursue punitive laws. West Virginia, Portland, and other cities are considering or passing legislation that imposes harsher fines and jail sentences for camping, loitering, or other behaviors associated with homelessness.

Conversely, some cities are adopting more humane, rights-based approaches. Seattle plans to add 1,000 new shelter spaces, emphasizing data-driven, compassionate policies. Denver reports a 50% reduction in street homelessness over two years, credited to outreach, rapid re-housing programs, and community-led initiatives. These efforts aim to address the root causes of homelessness rather than merely criminalize survival.

Broader Implications

The trend in 2024 underscores a polarized debate: should urban safety and order justify the criminalization of homelessness, or should cities prioritize systemic reforms? The human toll—displacement, trauma, fatalities, and the erosion of civil liberties—continues to grow. As enforcement and surveillance intensify, marginalized populations face increased marginalization and danger.

The critical question remains: Will policymakers continue down a punitive path, or will they pivot towards systemic solutions—such as affordable housing, healthcare, and social supports—that respect human rights and dignity? The choices made this year will shape whether cities become more humane or more punitive environments for those experiencing homelessness.