Court overturns OKC ordinance on panhandling
A federal court says the record in the challenge to a 2015 Oklahoma City ordinance "reveals t roubling evidence of animus against panhandlers."
A three- j udge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, in a ruling Monday, concluded the measure violates the First Amendment.
The judges ruled evidence was i nsufficient t o support the city's claim that restricting access to traffic medians was necessary t o protect public safety.
Panhandlers often favor medians near busy intersections, where they can solicit handouts from drivers waiting at stop lights.
Complaints about panhandling came to ahead in December 2 01 5 , when t he city council voted 7- 2 over the objections of social and religious activists to restrict pedestrians' access to medians. The ordinance took effect in January 2016.
University of Oklahoma Law School Professor Joseph Thai, part of the legal team challenging the measure on behalf of a panhandler, a politician and others, said Monday the court was right to affirm that medians traditionally have been open “forums” for free expression.
“The federal appeals court today vindicated our position that Oklahoma City violated the free-speech rights of citizens when it criminalized the time-honored practice of standing on medians to campaign for votes, fund- raise for charity, or panhandle for necessities ,” he said in an email.
“Safety is always our number one priority and was the reason for the adoption of the median safety ordinance,” a deputy city attorney, Amanda Carpenter, said in a written statement.
In light of the ruling, she said, the city“will not be en forcing its ordinance prohibiting persons from sitting, standing or staying on Oklahoma City medians.”
Ward 6 Council woman Jo Beth Ham mon, whose predecessor, Me gS a ly er, sponsored the ordinance in 2015, said the ordinance was “originally conceived to target panhandling” and that she was heartened by the ruling.
“As a city, we have an opportunity to address poverty and those experiencing it in constructive ways,” she said by text.
“This ordinance c reated more opportunities for people experiencing poverty to receive fines and get caught in the criminal legal system,” Ham on said .“While my understanding is that we can appeal this ruling, I'm hopeful that we as a city won't pursue that option.”
She said she hoped the city would “instead put our time and resources into addressing the underlying issues that perpetuate poverty.”
Those who spoke in opposition to the measure said the council was bucking criminal justice reform and perpetuating“criminalization of poverty.”
The appeals court panel noted in Oklahoma City traffic medians have long been open to expressive acti vities protected by the First Amendment, such as political campaigning and charity drives.
The judges said 509 medians had been counted in Oklahoma City and the measure restricted pedestrians' access to 406 — despite the fact one of those, near NW 23 and Broadway, is wide enough to have a fire station on it.
About a fourth of the remaining medians were off-limits under other measures aimed at restricting panhandling, the court said.
“The city has no power to ban people from peacefully speaking to each other in the public square ,” Thai said. “Mass protests for racial justice have demonstrated the critical importance of respecting our First Amendment freedoms if our country is to preserve its democratic character.”
“Unfortunately, the city has squandered four years of legal work and taxpayer dollars defending its unconstitutional attempt to sweep panhandlers out of sight,” he said.
Thai said the city should “have devoted those taxpayer resources to addressing the root causes of poverty in our communities.”
The judges said they were “baffled” by the lack of evidence of harm“if medians present the danger that the City argues they do” and said the First Amendment's protections against infringement on speech are deeply ingrained and far-reaching.
“Most of what we say to one another,” the judges said, quoting a 2010 case, “lacks religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value (let alone serious value), but it is still sheltered from government regulation.”