In this blog, we’ve been talking a lot about the various activities of Chicago’s panhandlers. What are the laws, if any, regulating these guys?
Before discussing the laws associated with panhandlers in Chicago, I’d like to take a moment to talk about a panhandling lawsuit occurring in November, 2003. This was a class-action lawsuit that, according to firstamendmentcenter.org, involved anyone arrested or ticket to panhandling between the years of 1999 and 2003. The city was ordered to give $400 to these panhandlers, for a total of about 5,000 panhandlers. Additional monies were given to the lawyers who had defended the panhandlers in court.
Why were panhandlers awarded money after they had been arrested?
In 1991, a city ordinance was passed 8-4-100, dealing with “Vagrancy,” allowed police to arrest anyone who appeared to be drunk, lewd, or panhandling. This law was challenged on the grounds of the First Amendment. The idea is that panhandling is covered by the First Amendment. When arresting someone for asking for money, the argument was, their freedom of commercial speech was being impeded upon.
The First Amendment reads
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So, because the lawyers argued that to arrest someone solely for panhandling was a violation of their First Amendment rights, the ordinance was eventually taken off the books.
In 2004, the Chicago city council passed another ordinance – the “Aggressive Panhandling” ordinance. This ordinance prohibits panhandlers from hitting people up for cash within 10 feet of ATMs, bus stops, sidewalk cafes and restaurants, parked or stopped vehicles, and bank entrances. It is also illegal, according to an Evanston, IL flier for panhandlers (Pdf link) to:
- panhandle within 15 seconds of a person leaving an ATM
- repeating panhandling requests to stationary people who have refused the request
- touching a person being solicited by the panhandler
- blocking the path of the solicited individual
- following the solicited person during or after a panhandling request
- using profane or abusive language towards the solicited individual
- making or acting in a manner that causes the solicited individual to feel as though they have been harassed.
Lawmakers argue that the aggressive panhandling laws do not violate 1st Amendment rights because they protect the rights of the individual solicited to by the panhandler. Homeless rights advocates argue that the aggressive panhandling laws do still violate the First Amendment right to free speech.
It is also important to note that advocates believe that these laws do little to help anything, as those who are panhandling often do not have the money to pay the fines, which can be up to $500 for a violation.
It is also interesting to note, on the Evanston flier the definition used for panhandling, and the panhandling loophole. This next part is a word for word quote from the linked Pdf file:
“Panhandling is: any request for an immediate donation of money or other gratuity made in person upon any street, public place or park in the City. This includes but is not limited to seeking immediate donations:
1) By vocal appeal or for music, singing or other street performance, and
2) Where the person being solicited receives an item of little or no monetary value in exchange for a donation, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the transaction is in substance a donation.
Panhandling does not include passively standing or sitting or performing music, singing, or other street performance with a sign or other designation that a donation is being sought, without any vocal request other than in response to an inquiry by another person.”
By this definition, there are different concerns that arise. I’ll enumerate them here:
1) It does seem as though the right to speech is being qualified as a quasi-illicit activity
2) It makes it appear that if I ask my friend for ten bucks while walking down the street, that this activity counts as panhandling, when most people would not consider this activity to be panhandling
3) It also seems that the bell-ringers for the Salvation Army would be considered panhandlers
4) If someone has a sign that says something along the lines of”Give me your money or else,” it would not be considered aggressive panhandling, since the person has only made a sign, and by this definition would not then be panhandling.
It thus seems to me, that if we want a law that allows for free speech, but protects the rights of people not to be harassed by panhandlers, that the definition of what counts and doesn’t count as panhandling would have to be more finely tuned
What do you think about the panhandling laws and the first amendment?