Miami Beach Homeless Arrests Spiked in February Under Anticamping Law
During one week in February, arrests of homeless people accounted for 66 percent of all arrests in Miami Beach.

Arrests of homeless people in Miami Beach for violating new anticamping laws sharply spiked in February, according to public records obtained by Reason.
In one particular week in mid-February, arrests of homeless people made up two-thirds of all arrests in Miami Beach.
The numbers are a glimpse into enforcement of anticamping laws in the city that became a model for the rest of Florida. And Florida is now leading a national crackdown following a Supreme Court decision that it's not cruel or unusual punishment to criminalize sleeping in public, even when there was no other shelter available. When Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a statewide law last year banning cities from allowing camping in public, he chose Miami Beach for the location.
DeSantis and Miami Beach officials say the laws are a firm but compassionate way to get people off the street and stop unsightly tent camps. However, homeless advocacy organizations and civil rights groups say criminalizing homelessness is cruel and counterproductive.
The arrest statistics were obtained from weekly memos that the Miami Beach city manager sent to the city council from last September through May on homeless outreach and enforcement. All of the memos are available here.
The memos show that in 2024, Miami Beach police arrested 261 people under an anticamping ordinance that it strengthened in October of the previous year.
The Miami Herald reported this January that, in addition to the anticamping ordinance, Miami Beach police were heavily enforcing quality-of-life offenses and nuisance crimes along the iconic beach and boardwalk. The result, the Herald reported, was that 42 percent of all Miami Beach arrests in 2024 were homeless people.
That kind of percentage isn't unheard of; in 2022 Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that roughly half of all arrests in Portland over a four-year period were of homeless people.
But in February, memos show that Miami Beach police began enforcing the law in a way that dwarfed its previous efforts.
According to a March memo from the Miami Beach city manager, the number of arrests for prohibited camping went from 10 and 13 in December and January, respectively, to 78 in February. The number of camping arrests dropped to 27 in March.
During the week of February 17, Miami Beach hit a particularly eye-popping statistic: Of the 125 total arrests that week, 82—66 percent—were of homeless people.
Of the 445 total arrests by Miami Beach police in February, 238 were homeless—53 percent.
During that same period, the Miami Beach Police Department Homeless Resource Unit placed four people in emergency shelters or residential treatment, according to city memos. The city's other homeless outreach services recorded dozens of placements, but also hundreds of refusals of service.

A spokesperson for the city of Miami Beach said in a statement to Reason that "no directive was issued to focus on the camping ordinance, and our approach continues to balance enforcement with outreach and care."
"The City of Miami Beach remains deeply committed to treating all individuals, including those experiencing homelessness, with dignity and compassion," the statement continued. "While we continue to prioritize public safety and the appropriate use of public spaces, we recognize the complexity of homelessness and actively work with our Office of Housing & Community Services to connect individuals with shelter and supportive services."
Under Miami Beach's anticamping ordinance, police must give homeless people the option of being transported to an available shelter. If they refuse, they can be arrested and taken to jail.
However, a Miami Herald review of arrests made after the city's public sleeping ban was enacted found Miami Beach police officers asked "only vague questions about whether homeless people want shelter or other assistance before detaining them. Officers do not appear to discuss the availability of beds in specific shelters, offer transportation to the shelters or explain that declining services will result in their immediate arrest."
Things used to be different. From 1992 to 2019, Miami was prohibited under the terms of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit settlement from arresting homeless people for sleeping, bathing, or other essential activities.
David Peery was homeless in Miami from 2008 to 2018 and was the class representative for homeless plaintiffs in the consent decree that resulted from the settlement.
Peery, now the founder and executive director of the Miami Coalition to Advance Racial Equity, was shocked by the February statistics. He says they show a "remarkable and deeply troubling diversion of police resources."
"They're spending their time chasing people whose only crime is not being able to afford a home," Peery says. "It's totally fiscally irresponsible and cruel."
As Reason's Christian Britschgi wrote, if cities are going to outlaw sleeping in public, they should also be working to deregulate and expand the types of housing they allow, but in many cases local governments are instead fighting new housing and trying to shut down shelters.
The spike in arrests also doesn't make sense to Peery because homelessness is going down in Miami-Dade County. In January, before the spike in arrests, the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust reported a 31 percent drop in unsheltered homelessness in Miami Beach over the previous year.
There was one major event on the calendar that month. The Miami International Boat Show took place February 12–16. Boatingindustry.com wrote that the trade show expected 100,000 attendees from around the world and was projected to generate $1 billion in economic activity for the state of Florida. DeSantis was on hand to offer a speech on freedom for recreational boaters.
It's not uncommon for cities to roust homeless people to make way for high-profile events and VIPs. Last March, for example, the Miami Herald reported that police ordered homeless people to move out of an area where filmmakers were shooting Bad Boys: Ride or Die.
"It's more important to hide homelessness than to solve it," Peery sighed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Easy prey. If they can't afford a place to live, then they certainly can't afford to defend themselves in court.
Nobody is above the law,
Maybe you should start blaming government, since they are the ones who made low-skill low-pay jobs illegal, and made flophouses, boarding houses, tiny houses, and other cheap housing illegal.
It is the government's fault that it makes these alternative housing arrangements illegal. That is true.
But the fault also lies with the people who demand that government make those housing arrangements illegal. It is typically the same people who want public camping to be illegal as well.
Yup. It's basically illegal to be poor in this country. If you can't afford a nice place to live, you can't afford a place to live.
Weird demand for the place to be nice even if you don't earn it.
Your Marxist mask slipped.
“But the fault also lies with the people who demand that government make those housing arrangements illegal. It is typically the same people who want public camping to be illegal as well.”
One of the truly bipartisan issues, at least on a local level.
Since when should the taxpayers have any say in government?
Hey maybe we can talk about how none of the monies - grants, taxes and emergency taxes seem to really trickle down and the beginning of the system may be the issue. You could even venture to say the system in the case of personal purchase may be defunct but hey it's the people that want responsibility for personal purchase and graft that are the bad ones. Got it, sympathy route frame positions that aren't filled with rainbows as bad.
There was never a homeless problem in this country until the government created it by doing all of the things you list and also deciding that it was okay for people to live on the street and beg and do drugs, because they have a right to be criminals and bums or something.
Maybe you should stop being a Jesse and stop assuming that my pithy statement was intentionally ignoring these things. If you want to have a conversation, lets. If you want to be a dick, go fuck yourself.
You, have a conversation? That's a laugh. The only conversations you have are with Jeffy. You insult more people than anyone else.
I have a theory that’s it’s illegal to be poor. Minimum housing standards for example. You can’t legally live in a shack if you want to. You can’t register a shitty car. Stuff like that.
That makes it hard to get ahead. Minimum wage is zero. Minimum housing standards are homelessness. Minimum car standards are walking.
So how incompetent, stupid, and lazy can people be and expect to survive?
It must have sucked in Maine watching all those taxpayer funds for the homeless go to paying for houses foe the illegals like you demanded.
Have you tried ever making an intelligent or logical argument?
Story hits close to home for you huh.
"They're spending their time chasing people whose only crime is not being able to afford a home," Peery says. "It's totally fiscally irresponsible and cruel."
They are spending time chasing people who have chosen to live on the street and beg and do drugs and ruin the community for the people who do work rather than work for a living. That is what is going on here.
Amen. The price may be zero, but the cost is enormous.
My experience dealing with homeless people in San Francisco in the 1980s was that most of them were simply lazy bums who found a way to get free food, and make life hard for anyone daring to suggest they were lazy shiftless bums by keying business and car windows, interrupting neighborhood meetings, and shitting all over doorsteps. From everything I've read, the only civic reaction has been to give them more handouts and arrest them even less.
I especially remember the SF government crying in their beer when the homeless refused to use the new homeless shelters and screamed that they were humans and had a human right to their own homes, that shelters were beneath their dignity.
There may have been mental cases who did deserve pity and help, but the city didn't care about them, only about the ones who screamed for "More! More!!!" and got more. Scum. No respect for them.
There are people who are homeless due to bad luck. They are short term homeless. They accept help, eventually get a break and get a place to live because they don't want to be homeless. They are maybe 20% of homeless and that is being generous and if there is a bad economy.
About 30% are no kidding mental cases who in a humane and sane society would be in some kind of institution. Since we are "an enlightened progressive" society, we stopped doing that and instead kick them out on the street to live in filth and jails for their entire lives.
The remaining 50% are just scum who refuse to work and just live their lives to take advantage of whatever situation they find. Sort of like Bernie Sanders if he had never discovered politics. They are absolute worthless bums who will destroy a community and ruin the quality of life for everyone if you let them.
In this case, I agree with you completely.
There's a big grey area between your 50% and your 30%. At what point does steadfast refusal to cooperate with helpers have to be considered a mental illness?
At the point where you are too crazy to go to jail. Ultimately, if you won't take help and you just want to live on the street, the only options are jail or an institution.
More anecdotal input. I've known homeless people who moved in and out of that status depending on their whims or how fucked up they were or wanted to be. They'd move from Momma to sister to brother to cousin until all one by one kicked them out for their degeneracy or criminality. Usually stealing from their benefactors. And this has become completely unmanageable since SCOTUS effectively banned involuntary commitment. It was a libertarian decision and there had indeed been many people abused by the system. But as a practical matter families were forced to somehow deal with people who had severe mental illnesses many of whom end up on the street when their families don't have the resources to deal with them anymore. I have watched this happen and it's just tragic all the way down. The voluntary homeless end up using these people as cover to get all manner of handouts. Treat the ill and throw the bums out.
Remember when Star Trek predicted sanctuary districts in 2024?
Only thing they missed was shit on the sidewalks.
My experience has been different. Most long-term homeless that I have contact with are suffering from at least moderate and often severe mental illness.
I put a lot of the blame for our current homelessness "crisis" on the deinsitutionalization movement of the 70s and 80s. I will concede that there were some truly horrific practices going on in many mental health institutions before that but shutting them down and shoving all those people onto the streets was a "cure" that often turned out worse than the disease.
Fully agree except I'm not sure that most of the homeless have severe mental illness these days.
The libertarian case for perpetuating the tragedy of the commons.
No doctrinaire Libertarian can ever accept the reality that there are people out there you don't want to meet or live next door to you. They just can't grasp the concept. In the same way communists believe that man can be perfected by government, doctrinaire libertarians believe man can be perfected by being left alone. If the government just leaves these people alone, they will suddenly see the error of their ways and no longer want to steal and beg and do drugs and instead want to be productive citizens. Didn't you know that?
And you're back to talking nonsense. Libertarians believe in letting people suffer the consequences of their actions, Including getting shot if they encroach on the safety and property of others, and that in general it is better to let the natural and social consequences of stupid decisions play out rather than to have government try to manage people's lives.
Libertarians believe in letting people suffer the consequences of their actions,
Sure they do. What Libertarians don't understand is that some people don't give a damn about those consequences. Libertarians cannot account for or explain someone who is happy to live in filth, beg and do drugs for their entire lives. So, they just refuse to believe that such people exist. As a result, they think that anyone who is living on the street is there because of some bad break or government policy and has a right to do so.
You seem to not believe that the articles in this publication say. It is like you think they are kidding or really mean something else. No, they really are this delusional.
To quote Mediocre Liz from this AM's Roundup:
(On California)
"That's a fascinating gap in the priorities of normal people vs. the folks who are supposed to represent them, and an interesting bit of magical thinking on the part of elected of elected officials" (replace CA elected Officials with Liberaltarians here)
I don't believe that all of the articles in this publication represent what I consider the libertarian position.
We will never be able to eliminate all degenerate deadbeats entirely. But libertarians also believe in private property and don't believe in subsidizing bad behavior. With less "public" property (which actually means government owned) and less subsidy for people who choose to live like this, you would get a lot less of it. Libertarians aren't to blame for the present homeless situation and the policies that encourage it are far from libertarian. That's on overly empathetic and deluded or misinformed left-liberals and progressives who may actually be deliberately trying to destroy our society.
Libertarians believe in letting people suffer the consequences of their actions
Well, some of them anyway.
I'd say most real libertarians understand that. Those would be the same types who work towards self-sufficiency and are armed. Cosmotarians are a different breed.
Great news!
Every person living on the streets has been approached by city workers and private 'homeless advocates' with offers of places to stay and multiple services. Every one of them who remains refused the offer - in order to be free to buy and use drugs. Everyone in the business knows it - including, I assume, the writer of this piece.
Theft is illegal, even if an argument can be made for free market solutions that make food prices more affordable.
Like illegal immigrants, reason tries to carve out exceptions for the homeless. These people get all kinds of special consideration from local governments. Cities dedicate a section of budget to address their needs. If we arrest them first sleeping in the streets and they won’t go to shelter, off to jail they go.
In this country, a lunatic might run over their sleeping bodies with a truck or shoot them. Sometimes removal is for their own good.
Reason never mentions the offers of help and these people's refusal to take it. Reason seems to think that it is everyone's right to be a bum and blight on the commons. It is not.
No one should ever let DeSanctimonious mention for a split second that he's pro-freedom. He's not. This is just example #62,230.
Nothing says "freedom" like the freedom to be a bum and prey on those who are not.
Fuck off.
I hope you demonstrate your righteous commitment to equity and have as many bums living in your house as they want.
How could there be homeless in Miami, when 'reason' staffers like Ciaramella have so graciously and charitably opened their houses to the homeless? So noble, so caring, so selfless, so ... never happened. The homeless are just keyboard fodder for Ciaramella.
When L.A. and San Francisco do the same thing this year - where are the homeless supposed to go?
to work
I hear there are plenty of tomatoes that need picking.
So, here's what would be the core of the nut graf if this story were written with the intent to inform, rather than engage in leftist propaganda:
Which means literally no one is being arrested for being unable to afford a home, despite the lies of activists that Ciaramella irresponsibly parrots. Anyone who is camping on this land without the permission of the owner just because they don't have shelter can quite simply accept the offer of transport to a shelter.
Now, yes, I saw the whining that the police aren't going out of their way to actively convince these people to take the shelter option, but, well, so what?
"There was one major event on the calendar that month. The Miami International Boat Show took place February 12–16. Boatingindustry.com wrote that the trade show expected 100,000 attendees from around the world and was projected to generate $1 billion in economic activity for the state of Florida. DeSantis was on hand to offer a speech on freedom for recreational boaters.
It's not uncommon for cities to roust homeless people to make way for high-profile events and VIPs. Last March, for example, the Miami Herald reported that police ordered homeless people to move out of an area where filmmakers were shooting Bad Boys: Ride or Die.
"It's more important to hide homelessness than to solve it," Peery sighed.
If they are in the public way they should absolutely be removed. Cities have to manage crowd and traffic control for large events. Nothing evil about that. Tourists shouldn't have to maneuver through tent cities to get to an event.
How do you solve for what is mostly a problem of addicts and those unwilling/unable to stay in and maintain a place? Most of the homeless I've met were lazy and entitled. Expending resources on them is often akin to casting pearls before swine. It seems like removing them from public areas they shouldn't be loitering in for big events is pretty easily justified.
During one week in February, arrests of homeless people accounted for 66 percent of all arrests in Miami Beach.
Nice. Now, get them to CECOT asap.
If we accidentally ship off an American citizen, we'll obviously fly him back and give him a Very Sincere Apology™ and a Doordash gift card.
(Applebees got pissed at all the creepy drug-addled weirdos with gift cards we were sending there as restitution for the hassle. Which, didn't make a lot of sense to us given that's their normal clientele - but we indulged their complaint all the same.)