OKC wins ordinance challenge by ACLU

Panhandling rule doesn’t limit free speech, judge says

An Oklahoma City panhandling ordinance, as recast to assure pedestrians’ safety along busy streets, is constitutional, a federal judge wrote in a decision announced Wednesday.

“The court concludes the ordinance is constitutional as against the challenges asserted here,” U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton said in a 29-page order denying a bid to block enforcement.

The decision was welcomed by Ward 8 Councilman Mark Stonecipher, who called it a “thoughtful order that helps promote public safety for our citizens.”

“I also believe it is time for all of us to move forward and focus our energy on reducing and helping our homeless population and those suffering from mental illness issues,” Stonecipher said.

The ordinance was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, which issued a statement promising to appeal.

The ACLU argued the ordinance denied panhandlers and others constitutionally protected rights to free speech and liberty by limiting pedestrians’ access to some traffic medians.

“We look forward to having our arguments heard in the federal appeals court and are prepared to fight for our clients each step of the way,” the ACLU statement said.

Opponents argued before its adoption in 2015 that the measure would effectively criminalize poverty.

Ward 6 Councilwoman Meg Salyer had said in a 2015 campaign fundraising letter that she wanted the city to “address issues like panhandling and homelessness in a meaningful way.”

The council adopted the original ordinance that December.

It had the effect of pushing panhandlers off the medians at busy intersections, preferred spots for seeking handouts from drivers at red lights waiting to turn left.

Going into the street to beg already was outlawed.

The ACLU filed suit the following April, asserting that the city’s characterization of the ordinance as a public safety measure was a sham intended to obscure the real intent.

The city argued medians were dangerous places for pedestrians to sit, stand or stay.

But in October 2017, the city council amended the measure, now known

as a “median-safety” ordinance, contracting its scope.

Pedestrians’ access to medians was restricted along busier thoroughfares where the speed limit is 40 mph or greater.

The move returned panhandlers to off-limits intersections, while essentially prohibiting people from cutting across busy streets between intersections and limiting access by sign-waving politicians.

The ACLU vowed to fight on.

Heaton found the retooled restrictions were reasonably drafted to limit the danger from having pedestrians in medians where traffic moves by at high speeds.

The ordinance also is a common-sense response to the potential for distracted driving, he said.

Sidewalks, medians where traffic moves slower, and other venues are available for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights, he wrote.

“The court concludes the ordinance leaves open ample alternative channels through which plaintiffs may communicate their protected speech,” Heaton said.