ACLU Files Federal Injunction re Panhandling Ordinance in Sacramento
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al.
July 17, 2014
Issues :
Free Speech
SHARE:
FACEBOOK
GOOGLE+
UPDATE: CASE SETTLES AND ENFORCEMENT TO START SPRING 2015
Plaintiffs’ attorney Merin said he had mixed feelings about the settlement. He said he’s pleased that the lawsuit forced the county to remove an unconstitutional restriction related to charity solicitation, but he remains dissatisified with the ordinance because he believes it attempts to cover up a problem created by economic hardship. “This is clearly a social problem that can’t be dealt with through prohibitions,” he said. “It needs to be handled through social programs.”
Merin said panhandling is a constitutional right and that the committee will make sure it is protected as the county begins enforcement.
Attorney note: That's interesting that panhandling is a constitutional right, since it's not normally thought of in that way. However, leaflet people, petition people,and many others can be categorized [for purposes of examining the conduct] so that in the end, applying the Constitutional analysis can be done.
On May 13, 2014, the County of Sacramento adopted an ordinance prohibiting what it calls “aggressive and intrusive solicitation.”
The ACLU of Northern California and the Law Office of Mark E. Merin have sued to stop enforcement of this new law because it broadly
and over-inclusively prohibits free speech, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Ordinance makes it a crime to solicit donations for charitable purposes. Specifically, it prohibits solicitation at such locations as: within 35 feet of any entrance to or exit from any financial institution or automated teller machine (“ATM”), from a vehicle occupant within 200 feet of an intersection, on any median strip, from a vehicle occupant within 35 feet of a driveway providing access to shopping centers, retail, or business establishments, in any public transportation vehicle or within 50 feet of any public transportation vehicle stop, at any motor vehicle occupant stopped at a gasoline station or pump.
The Ordinance is invalid because it singles speech out for restrictions when the speaker’s message is to ask for financial assistance for themselves, but not if they are asking for something else such as for a signature on a petition. This abridges the First Amendment rights of persons who seek to panhandle or solicit for donations for their own needs within the County of Sacramento and criminalizes the poor.
Learn more
Press release: Lawsuit Charges that Sacramento County’s Anti-Panhandling Ordinance is Unconstitutional
CASE DEVELOPMENTS
FILING
08/21/2014 - 6:45pm
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief In Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
FILING
08/21/2014 - 6:45pm
Declaration of Paul Masuhara in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
FILING
07/25/2014 - 6:45pm
Plantiffs' Brief for a Preliminary Injunction
FILING
07/17/2014 - 7:00pm
Complaint
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al.
July 17, 2014
Issues :
Free Speech
SHARE:
GOOGLE+
UPDATE: CASE SETTLES AND ENFORCEMENT TO START SPRING 2015
Plaintiffs’ attorney Merin said he had mixed feelings about the settlement. He said he’s pleased that the lawsuit forced the county to remove an unconstitutional restriction related to charity solicitation, but he remains dissatisified with the ordinance because he believes it attempts to cover up a problem created by economic hardship. “This is clearly a social problem that can’t be dealt with through prohibitions,” he said. “It needs to be handled through social programs.”
Merin said panhandling is a constitutional right and that the committee will make sure it is protected as the county begins enforcement.
Attorney note: That's interesting that panhandling is a constitutional right, since it's not normally thought of in that way. However, leaflet people, petition people,and many others can be categorized [for purposes of examining the conduct] so that in the end, applying the Constitutional analysis can be done.
On May 13, 2014, the County of Sacramento adopted an ordinance prohibiting what it calls “aggressive and intrusive solicitation.”
The ACLU of Northern California and the Law Office of Mark E. Merin have sued to stop enforcement of this new law because it broadly
and over-inclusively prohibits free speech, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Ordinance makes it a crime to solicit donations for charitable purposes. Specifically, it prohibits solicitation at such locations as: within 35 feet of any entrance to or exit from any financial institution or automated teller machine (“ATM”), from a vehicle occupant within 200 feet of an intersection, on any median strip, from a vehicle occupant within 35 feet of a driveway providing access to shopping centers, retail, or business establishments, in any public transportation vehicle or within 50 feet of any public transportation vehicle stop, at any motor vehicle occupant stopped at a gasoline station or pump.
The Ordinance is invalid because it singles speech out for restrictions when the speaker’s message is to ask for financial assistance for themselves, but not if they are asking for something else such as for a signature on a petition. This abridges the First Amendment rights of persons who seek to panhandle or solicit for donations for their own needs within the County of Sacramento and criminalizes the poor.
Learn more
Press release: Lawsuit Charges that Sacramento County’s Anti-Panhandling Ordinance is Unconstitutional
CASE DEVELOPMENTS
FILING
08/21/2014 - 6:45pm
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief In Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
FILING
08/21/2014 - 6:45pm
Declaration of Paul Masuhara in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
FILING
07/25/2014 - 6:45pm
Plantiffs' Brief for a Preliminary Injunction
FILING
07/17/2014 - 7:00pm
Complaint
