California Laws Regarding Panhandling
Panhandling, the practice of asking people for money or other donations on the street, takes a number of forms. In California, panhandlers may hold cardboard signs, sell newspapers or magazines, hand out flyers advertising their services or products and engage in other activities that they believe will attract donations. While some panhandlers earn good livelihoods and conduct themselves with professionalism, many operate with the intention of intimidating passers-by into giving them money. Others enter into direct conflicts over territory, money and public safety. Meanwhile, some communities have taken steps to ban aggressive panhandling , while others have focused on eliminating loitering.
In California, there are no statewide laws that specifically address panhandling or vagrancy. Instead, California laws regarding begging or panhandling fall under laws regarding trespassing, gambling, littering and vandalism. Additionally, some cities, counties and municipalities in California have enacted most of the laws in force regarding panhandling. Some of these laws prohibit aggressive panhandling, while others restrict panhandling near specific locations, such as schools, child daycare centers and hospitals. Others outlaw obstructing vehicular traffic, pedestrians and public transportation in order to panhandle.
City Ordinances and Differences Between Municipalities
Local ordinances can add a layer of complexity when it comes to the regulation of panhandling in California. Many counties and cities in the state have implemented their own rules regarding the practice, which may be more restrictive than what is permitted under the law at the state level.
Some local governments have enacted ordinances that prohibit aggressive panhandling or begging—actions that force the issue by demanding payment or by appearing forceful or threatening. For example, Santa Ana County recently adopted a measure that prohibits both aggressive panhandling and loitering on a roadway toward pedestrians in addition to panhandling in other areas. Similarly, Los Angeles County has a law in place that bans aggressive panhandling throughout the city.
While it can be helpful to have the extra guidance about what constitutes harassment and coercive behavior during a panhandling incident, local laws can also impose prohibitions that reach beyond the limits of state actions. For example, while the California government does not consider making annoying noises or using foul language, such as cursing, to be an aggressive tactic for soliciting donations, some municipalities in the state take a stricter stance, allowing for suppression of this practice.
However, panhandling has also been the source of some conflict in California, which has resulted in expensive legal fees for cities that have attempted to impose excessively restrictive ordinances. Four local governments in the state, including Los Angeles County, have recently settled with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) after the organization filed suit against them, charging that their aggressive panhandling ordinances were overly broad. The ACLU challenged Santa Ana County in 2015 regarding an ordinance that banned soliciting near ATMs and public transportation facilities and brought forth a lawsuit in 2016 against San Luis Obispo County over an anti-panhandling measure that included a sunset provision that called for its automatic repeal in 2018.
The ordinances in question faced deposition, as the ACLU argued that they unfairly targeted the homeless population, continuing to limit their freedom of speech in public places. Legal efforts by groups like the ACLU have thus largely been responsible for the repeal of ordinances that are deemed to go too far in prohibiting panhandling and similar tactics for soliciting funds.
Recent Legal Actions and Court Rulings
Over the past few years, courts both in California and across the United States have moved toward striking down many of the limitations on public conduct that arose in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of the "quality of life" anti-homelessness ordinances that flourished in the wake of homelessness crises that arose in most cities during that time. California in particular seems to be a proving ground for this trend. In 2014, for example, a federal judge struck down as unconstitutional a provision in a San Jose public conduct ordinance that prohibited lying down on public sidewalks or placing one’s head, legs, or feet on the sidewalk beyond the extent of the body and chin or jaw. In so ruling, the judge, Judge Carol Amon of the Eastern District of New York (sitting by designation), noted the increasing "outcry" over such "anti-homelessness" laws, citing caselaw from California as well as cases from other states striking down similar laws. He explained that such laws are unconstitutional because they suppress speech rather than combat homelessness, and they do so in their very quite concealment of their true purpose: While temporarily moving to alter one’s posture or configuration is a feasible alternative to lying down or sleeping, it is one that can be deemed constitutionally excessive solely because of its transient nature. Thus, the ordinance proscribes persons from expressing themselves on open streets in ways that are inconvenient or functionally impossible to accomplish. Judge Amon’s order aptly illustrates the real battleground for panhandlers, which is not only the appeal of their individual messages but simply their physical presence. Cases like his are even scarier for anti-panhandling advocates because even the government does not want to be in the business of determining whether the person expressing himself has a legitimate message that deserves constitutional protection. This desire was at the heart of the California Court of Appeal’s opinion invalidating the anti-panhandling law in Los Angeles concerned:
First Amendment and Speech Issues
In discussing legal challenges to panhandling regulations in California, the primary conflict that arises is between First Amendment rights to free speech and local anti-panhandling provisions. The First Amendment protects a broad category of speech unless that speech is part of criminal conduct, such as enticement into sex work or advertising child pornography. However, even speech that involves conduct that does not fall neatly into an illegal category may be limited in certain public spaces, like streets, sidewalks, parks and other public venues.
Panhandling is frequently used to obtain money and therefore could be considered commercial speech, which is protected by the First Amendment but subject to greater regulation than political speech. The regulation of commercial speech, however, is different than other forms of speech for both commercial and First Amendment concerns. The panhandler or their attorney might argue that any money offered or accepted as part of a panhandling transaction is a gift exempted from the California Consumer Gift Card Act, and that treating a gift as a commercial transaction would violate your Constitutional right to give or receive a gift.
California courts have found that while panhandling is not always considered expressive conduct, when it communicates a message, it is expression protected under the First Amendment. In Players International v. City of Oceanside (1994), the court found that panhandling was a form of speech entitling the panhandler to protections under the First Amendment. Yet, the case also stated that, "Oceanside may adopt an ordinance reasonable regulating contributions for the purpose of keeping the principal thoroughfares of its resort city open and accessible and free from objectionable sights that discourage tourism." The court therefore permitted the City to make its own ordinance but only to ensure the panhandlers’ rights to free speech were not violated.
Courts have determined that banning aggressive panhandling is appropriate because it poses a real danger to social order. In the case of Lowry v. City of San Diego, 403 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld San Diego’s ordinance against aggressive panhandling in part based on its effect on tourism and the city’s sales tax base. In 2014, the City of Los Angeles adopted an anti-panhandling law restricting aggressive panhandling and other aggressive solicitations of money, goods, or services. The new law contains numerous exceptions, including soliciting donations for a charity. Solicitors under the law must identify themselves and their association with a non-profit organization, but the ordinance permits blanket permit issuance to charities for greater efficiency.
Cities often target ordinances at certain behavior rather than motivation. The San Diego ordinance restricts aggressive panhandling, or "soliciting immediate donations of money or similar items from the occupant of any motor vehicle" — without prior consent, operating within 10 feet of a parked car, causing physical contact with the occupant, and using abusive language. Importantly, it is critical to understand that violating these ordinances can result in a civil citation or criminal misdemeanor, including fines and possible jail time.
In City of Fort Lauderdale v. Second Chance Org., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida stated that while the U.S. Supreme Court has not fully addressed this area of law, "ordinarily, ordinances that merely control the times and places where an activity occurs do not violate the First Amendment." Therefore, any local ordinance limiting panhandling need not even address the motivation behind the conduct. This means cities can impose strict limitations on solicitation, even if it is based on an income model, without violating the First Amendment, so long as the restrictions are not too broad and have a sufficiently important purpose.
Social and Economic Issues Contributing to Panhandling
Social and economic factors undoubtedly play a significant role in the widespread prevalence and acceptance of panhandling in California. While contributing to community concerns of homelessness, vagrancy, and homelessness, the charity of many is often what makes panhandling a socially acceptable practice amongst residents.
Economic deprivation, defined as lacking sufficient property to meet the most basic needs of life, is arguably the greatest social concern for many panhandlers. While factors such as physical or mental disabilities, PTSD, addiction to drugs or alcohol, a history of incarceration, or a history of child abuse may contribute to some economic depravation, the greatest factor that precludes low-income individuals from affording housing is the lack of affordable housing in markets across California. The National Low Income Housing Coalition recently released its 2018 report on the availability of affordable housing in the United States. The report reveals that even with income assistance, deep renters are unable to afford the rent of available rental units in California. According to the report, California is the most expensive state in the country to rent a home, requiring a minimum income of $52,786 to afford a rent of $1,320 per month for a two-bedroom apartment, while a renter must earn a minimum of $76,557 per year to rent a two-bedroom apartment at the market rate of $1,913 per month—more than 7.4 times the amount that may be required of a renter earning the state minimum wage. While costs associated with housing on the rise, state assistance in the form of cash payments and rental programs has seen a sharp decline .
While it is easy to assume that economic depravity is an exclusive cause of resistance to housing and homelessness, other forces are at play. Homelessness destroys records, deters many from seeking jobs, and discourages individuals from establishing a consistent address. That said, the interaction between deprivation and homelessness is not only coincidental, but mutually reinforcing; as homelessness tends to result in economic deprivation, deterioration in social networks, and stigmatization from mainstream society, economic deprivation likely exacerbates mental and physical health problems, further contributes to homelessness, and reduces access to welfare benefits.
Indeed, research shows that 95% of homeless individuals experience a serious mental illness, PTSD, drug abuse, or alcoholism. While the exact extent to which mental disability, substance abuse, and lack of job security cause the homelessness of an individual, most agree that economic deprivation and social instability are common causes of homelessness. In turn, financial insecurity is exacerbated by the disadvantages of homelessness, such as negative health impacts, chronic sicknesses, lack of insurance, interruptions in schooling, criminal prosecution, and perceived laziness or noncompliance.
Though the social stigma associated with panhandling is likely enough to deter many individuals from engaging in the practice, California residents are less inclined to reject those who engage in the practice of begging when they believe that doing so will help someone in need.
Police Response to Panhandling
Law enforcement has a unique role when it comes to panhandling in California. After all, police officers can write citations for violations of local ordinances. More broadly, they can arrest individuals when it seems like the police officer does not agree with somebody’s behavior or when he or she goes outside the bounds of normal civility. However, some cases of law enforcement and panhandling jurisdiction run counter to some of the more fundamental concepts of civil liberties. For example, in May 2013, a man was arrested after police officers cited him for violating a municipal ordinance. The alleged infractions? The man recorded an anti-panhandling speech in front of a food stamp office. Police officers used anti-vagrancy laws to arrest the man, but they ignored other people who were crowding around him — even though those people were actually engaging in panhandling. (The people who gathered around the anti-panhandling speaker were, in fact, contributing to his "cause.") The man was cleared of wrongdoing shortly after his arrest, but the incident raised many constitutional questions about the current state of panhandling regulations in California. When it comes to enforcing panhandling laws in California, police officers face a difficult task. As we have documented in other sections throughout this article, panhandling is a complicated issue on which reasonable minds can differ. Police officers have a very narrow window of possibilities when dealing with panhandlers on the streets, and these limitations can lead to errant conduct. Even if some conduct does not cross any brightline rules, police officers might still be perceived as acting inappropriately. Such high-stress encounters between officers and panhandlers can lead to misconduct or even violence. Additionally, many police officers simply do not realize that panhandling can, in some situations, be considered free speech. Many police officers put the law first and do not attempt to navigate the often murky intersection of free speech and panhandling. When this occurs, law enforcement and panhandling issues can suddenly escalate into dangerous situations. Even though law enforcement and panhandling as a matter of political necessity will continue to be a complicated issue, law enforcement officers can — and should — be informed about the distinctive issues in California.
Community Initiatives and Assistance Programs
While some community members view panhandling with suspicion, there is an equally robust array of community-based responses that aim to address the underlying issues that lead to and perpetuate the practice. Several law enforcement agencies have partnered with nonprofit organizations to implement outreach efforts that aim to connect the individuals who are soliciting with service providers.
Many such organizations offer a way for individuals who wish to help the homeless to do so in a way that is more effective and ensures that the donation will serve its intended purpose. Donations made to these organizations can be allocated to programs that provide services or shelters to the homeless rather than used to fund addiction. The Helping Hands program manages several community initiatives that involve outreach and development of solutions. For example, some communities implement "StreetSmart" programs that provide homeless people (the "street neighbors") with fluorescent vests that include information detailing how the public can help by donating to a partner organization . These vests help identify organizations that aid the homeless while deterring further solicitation by limiting the visibility of each individual’s need.
Some communities, such as San Francisco city and county, Large municipalities may also establish designated areas where panhandling is more acceptable. In downtown San Francisco, panhandling is not allowed on certain portions of sidewalks or near ATM kiosk entrances. While the City Ordinance prohibits "aggressive panhandling," members of the public have raised concerns that "aggressive panhandling" can in fact include almost any attempt to solicit donations from the public.
Even when there is no outright ban on panhandling, public campaigns have been designed to raise awareness about how panhandling can be harmful to some individuals. Organizations have attempted to highlight the dysfunction that panhandling can enable. This has inspired some legislators to propose bans on the practice or to limit government funding for homeless organizations that allow panhandling.
+ There are no comments
Add yours