Panhandling Law: The Right to Beg vs. the Right Not to be Bothered

One of the more interesting stories of human ingenuity in Tampa Bay that I have seen develop over the past year is the development of local ordinances that define, restrict or ban panhandling. 

St. Petersburg passed a relatively strict panhandling ordinance (section 20-79).  It essentially defines prohibited areas of panhandling, the means of which “solicitations” can be made, the times of day, and other restrictions. Essentially what I am referring to is a person at an intersection or on the sidewalk asking you to spare some change.

The economically intelligent panhandling community in St. Petersburg apparently realized that Tampa did not have a clearly defined panhandling ordinance and therefore made a shift to the new and unregulated Tampa target market. Now City of Tampa is ready to pass a similarly strict ordinance to regulate solicitations by panhandling. Notably, many other cities have panhandling ordinances, including Clearwater and New Port Richey.  Almost every city’s ordinances are available online. 

With any newly enacted restriction on items that could be considered “Freedom of Speech” in nature, it is typical for attorneys to line up across from one another to determine the restriction’s constitutionality. Make no mistake on two points of law: (1) Panhandling is a freedom of speech protected by the U.S. and Florida constitutions; and (2) Panhandling can be restricted without violating a panhandler’s constitutional rights. 

Notably, I refuse to argue one way or another whether any particular city’s panhandling ordinance is constitutional or not. I will leave that to the brilliant constitutional law professors, law school students or constitutional law attorneys to argue against the city attorneys. However, when one looks at the issue from a constitutional perspective, it is a very interesting issue that affects the lives of citizens on both sides of the issue.

Let us start with a basic (very basic) premise: Citizens of the United States, including Florida and the Tampa Bay area, have a freedom of speech. Now, we need to start to define what the freedom of speech means. It is clear that the freedom of speech is not completely unbridled. There are thousands of situations where the government can restrict freedom of speech (ever tell TSA at the airport you have a bomb? I wouldn’t suggest it). So our next basic premise is that while panhandling is a basic exercise of the freedom of speech, it can be restricted. But how far?

One of the more prominent court cases on the issue comes right from St. Petersburg (Ledford v. State). In 1995, the Second District Court of Appeal stated, “ ’Begging’ is entitled to some constitutional protection and it cannot be disputed that the ordinance regulates speech in a public forum. Hence, the ordinance is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. First Amendment analysis subjects the regulation of speech occurring on property traditionally available for public expression to the highest scrutiny.”*

The appeals court attacked the fundamental question that leads to the panhandling ordinances: balancing the right to “beg” (a form of speech) with the right to be free from being annoyed. In Ledford, the Court of Appeals held a previous version of St. Petersburg City Ordinance banning panhandling as unconstitutional: “In subjecting the ordinance to strict scrutiny, we hold that section 20-79 of the City of St. Petersburg Code is unconstitutionally overbroad and infringes on Ledford's free speech rights in a manner more intrusive than is necessary. We embrace the holding in CCB that the aim of protecting citizens from annoyance is not a ‘compelling’ reason to restrict speech in a traditionally public forum.”**

The Court of Appeals relied on a case that arose in Jacksonville that likewise held that a city ordinance was unconstitutional because it was too restrictive. The Court in Jacksonville stated, “The City of Jacksonville is not entitled to absolutely prohibit a beggar's exercise of his freedom of speech, but the city may regulate that right subject to strict guidelines and definite standards closely related to permissible municipal interests, such as could be imposed by a narrowly drawn permit system.”***

As such, we see a clear line of analysis being drawn on the sidewalk.  Panhandling cannot be completely eliminated. However, it can be regulated and perhaps strictly regulated. The question for the citizens now becomes how far can the line be pushed in favor of regulation before the law becomes unconstitutional and therefore has to be rewritten?

If I can now digress from a legal analysis and just offer an opinion. As I indicated at the beginning of the article, St. Petersburg regulated the panhandling market to such a degree that the market moved. Despite regulation, a market still needs people to fund it. Is the best way to eliminate panhandling in your city to regulate it, litigate it, and punish panhandlers with criminal sanctions? Or would a grassroots movement against actually donating money to panhandlers send the panhandler to a different, more favorable market?

* - Ledford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).
** - Ledford, 652 So. 2d at 1256.
*** - C.C.B. v. State, 458 So. 2d 47, 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)