Illegal lodging under California Penal Code 647(e) is a misdemeanor that makes it a crime to set up living accommodations in any building, structure, vehicle, or place — public or private — without the permission of the owner or whoever controls the property. A conviction carries up to six months in county jail and a base fine of up to $1,000, though mandatory penalty assessments routinely push the actual amount owed to several times that figure.1California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 647 – Disorderly Conduct
What the Statute Covers
The text of 647(e) is short. It applies to anyone “who lodges in a building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.”1California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 647 – Disorderly Conduct That sentence creates two elements the prosecution must prove: you were lodging in a covered location, and you did not have permission.
The reach is deliberately wide. “Building” and “structure” cover apartment complexes, commercial storefronts, barns, sheds, and abandoned warehouses. “Vehicle” catches someone living in a car, van, or RV parked on property they don’t control. “Place” extends to outdoor locations like parks, government lots, and undeveloped land. The phrase “whether public or private” means no category of property is automatically exempt.
Lodging vs. Just Being Present
Not every person found sitting, lying down, or even sleeping somewhere unauthorized is lodging. California courts have drawn a meaningful line, and it is the line that decides whether a 647(e) charge holds up.
Lodging requires more than temporary presence. It involves setting up living accommodations that turn a location into a makeshift residence. Courts have held that “the mere act of temporarily sitting on a curb is not lodging,” and simply lying in a bedroll does not qualify either. What crosses the line is using “items or structures associated with sleeping quarters,” such as erecting a tent or arranging furniture and bedding into a domestic setup. San Francisco police guidance, for example, instructed officers not to enforce 647(e) against someone merely lying in a bedroll, but to apply it when someone “set up living accommodations.”2FindLaw. Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
The practical indicators officers and prosecutors look for include bedding arranged for regular use, personal belongings stored as if in a home, cooking equipment or food supplies, and any structures or enclosures the person has assembled. A single blanket draped over someone who fell asleep on a bench looks different from a tent with a sleeping bag, a cooler, and personal items organized inside. The more the scene resembles a living space, the stronger the lodging case.
How Lodging Differs From Trespassing
Illegal lodging and criminal trespass under PC 602 overlap but are not the same charge. Trespass is broader, covering dozens of specific acts from entering and occupying real property without consent to refusing to leave when asked by the owner or a peace officer.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 602 – Trespass You can trespass without lodging, and you can lodge without a traditional trespass scenario, such as sleeping overnight in a park that is otherwise open to the public.
The key difference is what the person is doing on the property. Trespass focuses on unauthorized entry or refusal to leave. Lodging focuses on using the location as a place to live, however temporarily. Someone who breaks into an empty building and is found standing inside might face trespass. The same person found a week later with a mattress, a camp stove, and bags of clothes inside that building is a stronger candidate for a lodging charge. Both are misdemeanors, but 647(e) more directly addresses the domestic use of someone else’s space.
Why Permission Is the Dividing Line
Consent separates lawful from unlawful occupancy under this statute. If the owner, manager, or person in control gave permission, expressly or through their conduct, there is no violation. A friend who lets you crash on their couch has given permission. A property manager who sees you sleeping in a building lobby every night and says nothing may have created implied consent, though that is a harder argument to win in court.
The prosecution must show you knew or should have known you lacked permission. Prior warnings, posted no-trespassing signs, locked doors, and verbal confrontations all serve as evidence that consent was absent. If no one told you to leave and no signs were posted, the defense can argue you reasonably believed you were allowed to be there.
Penalties for a Conviction
Illegal lodging under 647(e) is classified as disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Penal Code 19 sets the default misdemeanor punishment at up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.4California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 19 – Misdemeanor Punishment
The base fine is misleading. California stacks mandatory penalty assessments and surcharges on top of every criminal fine, including the roughly dollar-for-dollar add-on under Penal Code 1464 and the 20% state surcharge under PC 1465.7, plus county-level penalties and various court fees. In practice, a $1,000 base fine routinely balloons to $4,000 or more by the time all add-ons are calculated. Defendants who expect to pay only the base amount get a rude surprise at sentencing.
Beyond fines and potential jail time, a conviction creates a misdemeanor criminal record that can surface on background checks for employment and housing. Courts often grant summary probation as an alternative to jail, typically one to three years, with conditions that may include staying away from the property, performing community service, or completing counseling.
Defenses to an Illegal Lodging Charge
Consent or Reasonable Belief of Consent
The most direct defense is that you had permission, or genuinely believed you did. If the property owner previously allowed you to stay and never clearly revoked that permission, the prosecution’s case weakens. An unlocked and apparently abandoned building with no posted signs can support an argument that you reasonably believed no one would object to your presence.
You Weren’t Actually Lodging
Because courts have drawn a firm line between lodging and mere presence, a defendant who was simply resting, sitting, or sleeping without setting up living accommodations has a viable defense. The prosecution needs evidence of the domestic setup that transforms a spot into a temporary home. Someone found asleep on a bench with nothing but the clothes on their back is a weak lodging case.
Necessity
California law recognizes a necessity defense when the defendant faced an immediate threat of harm, had no reasonable legal alternative, and the harm avoided outweighed the harm caused by breaking the law. A person with nowhere to sleep during a dangerous cold snap might argue that lodging in an empty structure was necessary to avoid serious physical harm. California appellate courts have recognized that necessity can apply in public camping contexts, but the defense requires specific, provable facts; a generalized claim of homelessness alone is unlikely to succeed.
Diversion and Clearing Your Record
California Penal Code 1001.95 gives judges discretion to offer diversion for most misdemeanor charges, including 647(e). If granted, the court continues the case for up to 24 months while you complete conditions the judge sets, which might include community service, counseling, or connecting with housing services. Successful completion dismisses the charges. The statute excludes certain offenses like domestic violence and offenses requiring sex offender registration, but illegal lodging is not among the exclusions.5California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 1001.95 – Misdemeanor Diversion
The significant advantage is that upon successful completion, the arrest “shall be deemed to have never occurred,” meaning you can legally state on most applications that you were not arrested for the offense. Judges can offer diversion even over the prosecutor’s objection.
If diversion is not available or a conviction has already been entered, Penal Code 1203.4 allows you to petition for dismissal, commonly called expungement. You can file as soon as probation ends, or one year from the date of judgment if you were sentenced without probation.5California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 1001.95 – Misdemeanor Diversion To be eligible, you must not be currently serving a sentence, on probation, or charged with another crime. If granted, the court withdraws the plea and dismisses the case, releasing you from “all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense.”
The relief has limits. A dismissed conviction must still be disclosed when applying for a law enforcement position and can still appear in background checks run by government licensing agencies. It does not restore firearm rights lost due to the conviction. For most private-sector employment and housing applications, though, a successful 1203.4 petition removes the biggest practical barrier.
Enforcement After Grants Pass
For nearly five years, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise limited how aggressively California jurisdictions could enforce anti-lodging and anti-camping laws against unhoused people. That ruling held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited cities from prosecuting homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors when there were more homeless people in a jurisdiction than available shelter beds.6United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Martin v. City of Boise Many California cities hesitated to enforce 647(e) against unhoused residents at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that framework in June 2024 with City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, holding that generally applicable anti-camping laws do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, even when applied to people with no other shelter option. The majority reasoned that the Eighth Amendment addresses the “method or kind of punishment” imposed after conviction, not whether a government may criminalize particular conduct in the first place.7Supreme Court of the United States. City of Grants Pass v. Johnson The ruling removed the constitutional shelter-bed prerequisite that had constrained enforcement across the western states.
Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-1-24 then directed state agencies to address encampments on state property, and in 2025 the governor released a model ordinance for cities and counties. The model asks local officials to provide at least 48 hours’ written notice before clearing an encampment, make reasonable efforts to offer shelter and services, and establish a process for storing displaced individuals’ belongings.8Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor Newsom Releases State Model for Cities and Counties to Immediately Address Encampments with Urgency and Dignity These requirements are not mandatory statewide, but they represent the enforcement template the state is encouraging local governments to adopt.
Impact on Housing Assistance
Federal law does not require denial of Section 8 vouchers or public housing for a misdemeanor lodging conviction. Public Housing Agencies have broad discretion to set their own admission policies around criminal history, and HUD guidance encourages them to balance resident safety against the reentry needs of people with criminal records.9U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook – Eligibility Determination and Denial of Assistance
Mandatory denials are reserved for serious offenses: lifetime sex offender registration, manufacturing methamphetamine in federally assisted housing, and drug-related evictions from assisted housing within the past three years. A 647(e) conviction falls well outside those categories. Individual housing authorities can and sometimes do deny applicants based on any criminal conviction, so the risk is not zero. Obtaining a dismissal under 1203.4 or completing diversion under 1001.95 substantially reduces this exposure, since HUD prohibits denials based solely on arrest records and a successfully diverted case is treated as though the arrest never happened.