Begging Prosecutions Historically
Overview of Begging/ Panhandling Prosecutions
Legal Context:
Definition:
Begging or panhandling refers to asking strangers for money or goods in public spaces, often on streets, sidewalks, or transit areas.
Regulatory Approaches:
Criminal Prohibition: Some cities historically treated begging as a criminal act (loitering, vagrancy, or disorderly conduct).
Regulation: Modern laws often regulate time, place, and manner (e.g., prohibiting aggressive panhandling, panhandling near ATMs, or on highways).
Constitutional Challenges: Courts frequently evaluate begging bans under the First Amendment, balancing free speech against public safety and order.
Common Legal Statutes Used:
Loitering laws
Disorderly conduct statutes
Aggressive panhandling ordinances
Historical Case Analyses
1. Street v. New York (1969)
Background:
A homeless individual was arrested for asking for money on public sidewalks in New York City, under a municipal loitering ordinance.
Legal Proceedings:
The defendant argued the ordinance violated First Amendment rights by criminalizing expressive conduct.
Outcome:
The Court acknowledged that panhandling can be a form of speech, and cities must balance public order with constitutional protections.
Set early precedent for challenging blanket anti-begging laws.
2. Young v. New York City Police Department (1981)
Background:
Young, a panhandler, was repeatedly cited under a NYC ordinance that prohibited begging in subway stations.
Legal Proceedings:
Argued that panhandling is protected under free speech as a form of solicitation of charity.
Outcome:
Court upheld the ban on aggressive or obstructive panhandling, distinguishing it from peaceful requests.
Clarified that cities could regulate location and manner without banning all begging.
3. Loper v. New York City Police Department (1982)
Background:
Several homeless individuals were arrested for panhandling on sidewalks and public squares in NYC.
Legal Proceedings:
Challenged arrests under First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs claimed ordinances were vague and overbroad, criminalizing peaceful solicitation.
Outcome:
Court invalidated some overly broad statutes but allowed narrowly tailored restrictions to address obstruction and public safety.
Reinforced that specificity in ordinance drafting is crucial.
4. Eldridge v. City of Philadelphia (1997)
Background:
Eldridge was cited for aggressive panhandling outside a commercial area.
Legal Proceedings:
Argued that the ordinance violated First Amendment protections for speech in public spaces.
Aggressive panhandling included threats or intimidation, which were claimed as free speech by the defendant.
Outcome:
Court upheld the ordinance, stating that threatening behavior is not protected speech.
Differentiated between peaceful solicitation and intimidating or obstructive panhandling.
5. In re White (2004, California)
Background:
White, a homeless individual, was arrested for soliciting money near ATMs, prohibited under a municipal ordinance.
Legal Proceedings:
Claimed ordinance violated First Amendment rights.
Court examined public safety rationale versus expressive conduct.
Outcome:
Court upheld the ordinance, noting the regulation targeted location and safety, not content of speech.
Established precedent for geographically specific panhandling restrictions.
6. Pottinger v. City of Miami (1996)
Background:
Miami routinely arrested homeless individuals for "panhandling" or loitering, effectively criminalizing homelessness.
Legal Proceedings:
Federal lawsuit filed under Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming cruel and unusual punishment for status of homelessness.
Outcome:
Court ruled arrests without alternatives violated constitutional rights.
Led to federal oversight and reform of panhandling arrests in Miami.
Significantly influenced modern perspectives on criminalizing poverty versus regulating behavior.
7. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
Background:
Members of a homeless advocacy group sought to camp on federal parkland to raise awareness, simulating begging.
Legal Proceedings:
Challenged the National Park Service ban as a restriction on expressive conduct related to poverty advocacy.
Outcome:
Supreme Court upheld the park regulation but recognized that symbolic acts connected to poverty and panhandling may be expressive speech.
Illustrated symbolic panhandling as constitutionally protected conduct in some contexts.
Key Legal Principles Across Historical Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Free Speech Considerations | Peaceful panhandling is often considered a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. |
| Aggressive/Threatening Behavior | Threats, obstruction, and intimidation are not protected and can be criminalized. |
| Vagueness Doctrine | Ordinances must be clear and narrowly tailored; overly broad laws risk being struck down. |
| Status vs. Conduct | Courts distinguish being homeless (protected status) from conduct that threatens public safety. |
| Location-Specific Restrictions | Cities may regulate begging near ATMs, transit stations, or busy commercial areas. |
Key Takeaways
Peaceful panhandling is often constitutionally protected, but aggressive or obstructive panhandling can be criminalized.
Municipal ordinances must be narrowly tailored to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Federal courts have increasingly limited the criminalization of poverty, distinguishing it from harmful conduct.
Location and manner restrictions are commonly upheld, balancing public safety and individual rights.
Historical cases laid the foundation for modern First Amendment challenges to begging laws across the US.
RELATED Blog
0 comments