24 - Proposed Panhandling OrdinanceItem No. 24
memorandum
TO: City Council
Gene Anderson, Interim City Manager
FROM: Stephanie H. Harris, City Attorney
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PANHANDLING ORDINANCE
DATE: January 22, 2020
BACKGROUND: In the last few weeks, the city has had several requests to enact an anti -
panhandling ordinance. At its meeting on January 13th, council requested that I review some model
ordinances relating to panhandling and report back as to the possibility of passing such an
ordinance in Paris.
STATUS OF ISSUE: I have researched this issue at length. One model ordinance, drafted by a
former professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, is oft cited and takes into
account the points most often raised by courts regarding panhandling ordinances. This area of the
law has changed considerably since a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
While the law is still developing, it appears that the most legally defensible regulations will share
these attributes:
• They will avoid a blanket ban on panhandling, as such blanket bans are almost certainly
unconstitutional.
• They will regulate conduct rather than speech (e.g., regulation of standing or soliciting in a
particularly dangerous location may be allowable, while regulation of holding a sign asking
for money is probably not).
• They should not apply to the entire city, but rather to specified areas of concern.
• The regulation should apply not only to panhandling, but to all other similar types of activity
such as charitable solicitations and political activities so as to avoid regulating only one
particular type of speech or group of speakers.
• The city should develop a strong factual record demonstrating (a) the nature of the threat to
public safety; (b) the locations where that threat exists; and (c) that the threat is sufficient
to warrant regulation. Such a record would need to comprise more than anecdotal evidence.
The city should then cite this factual record within the ordinance itself.
If the factual record justifies regulation of the concerning activity, the regulation must be the
least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal of lessening or eliminating the threat.
At this time, it is premature to adopt any type of anti -panhandling ordinance because we have not
had the opportunity to develop a thorough factual record in order to justify such an ordinance. If
council wishes to pursue this matter, it should instruct staff to undertake the necessary factual
investigation. Alternatively, or perhaps concurrently, council could consider existing laws and
ordinances that regulate various types of conduct that have been brought up in this context, e.g.,
littering, assault, impeding traffic, and review how we might utilize these existing laws to address
the issue. In any event, council should proceed very carefully in light of the changing nature of
this very litigious area of law and the constitutional issues it raises.
BUDGET: No impact to the budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff.