Alabama legislation would up penalties for loitering in streets

Bill comes in midst of battle in Montgomery over panhandling

An Alabama House Republican has filed a bill that would increase penalties for loitering along public rights of way.

Under Alabama law, loitering is a violation, punishable by a fine of up to $200 or a maximum of 30 days in jail. The bill, HB 24, sponsored by Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Montgomery, would raise the punishment for second and subsequent convictions, subjecting people to up to three months in jail or a $500 fine.

Ingram said in an interview this week that the bill focused on public safety, saying individuals panhandling or loitering on the road could be hit by cars. But Ingram also accused many panhandlers of being addicted to drugs or choosing not to work.

“There’s been a lot of people who are scared because their wife doesn’t want to go shopping because a man comes knocking on their door on their car, pulling on their door handles,” he added. “The roadway is not designed to stand out there and solicit, whether it is for money or whether it is for advertising.”

The bill is the latest front in a long-running battle over the city of Montgomery’s approach to panhandling, one that has led a federal court to block enforcement of the state’s existing laws against begging. Critics of Ingram’s legislation say it targets a vulnerable population and does little for their safety.

“We can’t, as a society, in the way that we make policy, pit the public safety of some people against the public safety of other people,” said Lily Milwit, an attorney with the National Homelessness Law Center, which has challenged local Alabama ordinances increasing punishments for panhandling. “Obviously, in an ideal world, we are enacting policies that achieve this idea of public safety and health for everyone. Oftentimes, these policies are very clear, and not trying to hide the fact that they are prioritizing the conception of public safety for some people at the expense of public safety for other people. That is not acceptable.”

A GENERAL BAN

In 2019, the Montgomery City Council approved an ordinance that would have required jail time for people convicted of panhandling. In an interview on Monday, Charles Jinright, a member of the council, said the city had to act on the issue and questioned the motivations of some panhandlers.

“You have panhandlers who could have been, somewhat, legitimate,” he said. “But the majority of them now, they are all in the country. I see TV shows showing videos of people, women going out there with a child by their side. They will put a pillow in to look like they are pregnant. They will go out and panhandle for a little while, then they will go out to their car and go to their new apartment.”

The ordinance led to protests and was never enacted.

State law bans being in a roadway “for the purpose of begging.” Ingram’s bill would strip that language and turn it into a general ban on loitering on public roads.

The current statute also allows people who have city or county permits to seek jobs, businesses or donations to stand in a highway. The bill removes that exception. But exceptions for those attending masquerade parties, parades or educational, religious and historical presentations would remain in place.

Under the bill, a law enforcement officer would first have to order a person in a public street to leave before making an arrest. Ingram also said he wanted to amend the bill to allow a law enforcement officer to take the individual to a shelter in lieu of spending the night in jail.

‘AND GO WHERE?’

The National Homelessness Law Center categorizes laws that criminalize homelessness as any rule or law that makes it illegal or impractical for people to remain in public spaces for lifesaving activities.

According to a 2019 report from the center that surveyed 187 cities, 33 new laws prohibiting loitering had been established between 2006 and 2019 among the cities that were surveyed, amounting to a 103% increase.

But Milwit said laws already exist to address the public safety concerns that officials have when it comes to people who are homeless, such as bans on littering and public harassment.

“I imagine that Alabama has state and municipal laws on the books, in their traffic code, regulating obstruction of highways, regulating where someone might be able to stand, or how people can stop on the roads, on medians or highways,” Milwit said.

Priya Jones, deputy executive director with the Fines and Fees Justice Center, said the fines could be too much for a population in need of financial assistance.

Jinwright said Montgomery city officials felt a need to act.

“In reality, you don’t know where to put them,” he said. “You pick them up, you don’t have any place to put them. This lawsuit we have got hanging over us, you can’t really put them in jail. But you need to get them off the streets.”

But Jerome Dees, Alabama policy director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the legislation doesn’t address the homelessness driving many people to the streets.

“My immediate response is, ‘and go where?’” he said. “‘And they go out of jail, and they go where?’ If they are not going back to their apartment, or if they are unhoused individuals, they are going back into spaces where they are going to get picked back up again.”

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

The constitutionality of existing state law is also uncertain. Shortly after Montgomery repealed its local ordinance on panhandling in 2019, three homeless plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Homelessness Law Center and the ACLU sued Montgomery in federal court, arguing Alabama’s state law violated the rights of people to solicit money under the First Amendment.

“In most cases, a government has to prove that their restriction on panhandling, which is a protected First Amendment activity, is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling public interest,” Milwit said.

In August 2021, U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins ruled that Alabama’s anti-panhandling laws violated free speech rights and issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the statute.

Despite the concerns, Ingram believes he can get the bill through.

“We have worked with the local people,” he said. “We tried to address all those issues, legal or not legal. Of course, it is going to have some resistance on the floor, I would imagine. I think once the bill passes, it is going to be fine.”