Greensboro’s Panhandling and Loitering Laws are Unconstitutional
➢ Greensboro has 11 Questionable Ordinances that
Regulate Panhandling and Loitering:
o Sec. 13-201. – Panhandlers.
o Sec. 13-181. - Application of article.
o Sec. 20-1. - Begging or soliciting alms.
o Sec. 20-67. - Business permit o Sec. 20-16. - Definitions. procedures.
o Sec. 13-203. - Street performers.
Sec. 20-72. - Business permit required.
o Sec. 18-44. – “Loitering”
o Sec. 20-73. - Violations.
o And Sec. 18-46. – “Loitering for the
-
Sec. 20-66. - Registration and business purpose of engaging in drug-related permit required activity.”
The 2015 Supreme Court Decision - Reed v. Town of Gilbert changed the ways that panhandling rules are understood under the law. Ordinances that target begging or panhandling are now considered to be “content based” speech restrictions, which are presumed to be unconstitutional because they violate First Amendment Rights.
-
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers NC) has ruled that restrictions on panhandling discriminate against specific kinds of speech based their content. Hence, they are deemed unconstitutional.
-
Requiring a permit for engaging in speech making (i.e. panhandling) is considered a ‘prior restraint’ – which is also unconstitutional.
-
Since Reed v. Gilbert – 100% of Federal Court Cases challenging Panhandling and Loitering Ordinances have ruled against cities imposing anti-begging ordinances.
-
Speech restrictions must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling government interest”, and must only limit the “least amount of speech possible.”
-
“Listener offense”, “business or tourism” and “economic development” do not constitute “compelling government interests”.
-
Cities must also prove that they “actually tried other methods to address the problem.” o “Aggressive Panhandling” ordinances are also unconstitutional because legitimate laws cannot be based on illegitimate laws. (Assault is assault – but it doesn’t matter whether you begged for change at the same time).
“Post Reed, municipalities must go back to the drafting board and craft solutions which recognize an individual[‘s] [right] to continue to solicit in accordance with their rights under the First Amendment, while at the same time, ensuring that their conduct does not threaten their own safety, or that of those being solicited. In doing so, they must define with particularity the threat to public safety they seek to address, and then enact laws that precisely and narrowly restrict only that conduct which would constitute such a threat.”
– Thayer v. City of Worcester
​
Panhandling and Loitering ordinances are often also found to be unconstitutionally vague:
-
Courts have stated that local ordinances must clearly identify which behaviors are restricted and cannot be so vaguely worded as to allow for “arbitrary or discriminatory” policing. GSO loitering laws are incredibly vague.
-
Much like historical Anti-Okie, Jim Crow and Ugly Laws, modern anti-loitering and panhandling ordinances are broadly worded and vague, giving police sweeping powers to push poor and homeless people out of public spaces.
-
Criminalizing homelessness and poverty is… o Costly to Tax Payers – Study after study shows that housing people is cheaper than keeping them in the cycle of jail, streets, emergency rooms and shelter.
-
Counterproductive – No one has ever been ticketed for a “quality of life crime” and magically gotten housed. What they get is a court date, a fine and a record keeping them from getting employment, benefits and housing.
-
Cruel – These laws are sad relics of the past, when governments openly allowed laws to legally discriminate against specific demographics of people. o And Unconstitutional – The Obama Administration, HUD, the Department of
-
Justice, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and many, many others have stated that criminalizing homelessness is not only wrong but legally indefensible. Laws that make unavoidable and life sustaining activities (like begging or sleeping or simply existing) a crime leave local municipalities vulnerable to countless lawsuits.
-
People beg for a reason – o Regardless of how uncomfortable being approached by someone begging may be – using local ordinances to make such constitutionally protected activities a crime will never address the underlying reasons why people have to beg to make ends meet.
-
If we want to address our current homeless epidemic, we have to make sure that people have access to safe affordable housing – o It is basic wisdom that homelessness ends with a home, and nothing else. Efforts to end homelessness must respect human rights and focus on long term affordable housing options, not just band-aid solutions like shelter.
