Youngstown police told to no longer enforce begging ordinance

June 6, 2015 at 12:13a.m.

YOUNGSTOWN

The police department stopped enforcing the city’s begging ordinance Friday after the law director determined it was unconstitutional.

However, aggressive and/or harassing conduct by those asking for money still could result in charges such as disorderly conduct, Law Director Martin Hume said.

“Speech is protected [by the First Amendment] and conduct is not,” he said. “Even without the begging ordinance, the statute can cover the same behavior. If council wants to address aggressive panhandling, they can.”

Hume instructed the police department Friday – the same day The Vindicator published an article about the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filing a complaint with the city about the anti-begging ordinance – to stop charging people with violating it.

The ACLU called for city council to repeal the ordinance it approved Oct. 7, 2009.

The three-sentence ordinance starts with: “No person shall beg for money or other things of value within the city.” It also includes that the first conviction is a minor misdemeanor and following convictions would be second-degree misdemeanors, and that the ordinance “be construed as a strict liability offense.”

In Thursday’s letter, Joseph Mead, an attorney working on behalf of the ACLU, pointed out the way the law is written, it applies to any form of charitable request in the city, and “the scope of what is made illegal under this ordinance is breathtaking.”

He also pointed out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction in Ohio, ruled in 2013 that a Michigan law banning begging in public places was unconstitutional, and Youngstown’s law is very similar.

Hume agreed and informed the police department Friday.

Lt. Brian Butler, police staff inspector, said most begging citations are written downtown because that is where a large number of homeless people congregate. He said officers were instructed Friday to issue someone a citation for disorderly conduct if a person who is begging is participating in any type of behavior that is disruptive or intrudes on someone else’s person or property.

“Although we respect the court’s decision, we still have an obligation to act if a person’s behavior is disruptive, especially at a business,” Butler said.

In response to Youngstown’s decision, Mead said, “That’s a great first step. It’s important that the law be repealed because it’s still on the books and could be interpreted differently in the future. But I’m very pleased the law director recognized the constitutional issues.”

Hume said his office will offer legal advice to council as to how to proceed.

There could be an amendment to the existing law to put in “a greater definition or maybe confine [a begging ban] to a geographic area,” he said. “The problem is the statute is overbroad. We can address it by tailoring it to more-specific conduct.”

A downtown Youngstown business owner, Al Adi of the Downtown Circle convenience store and deli at 116 W. Federal St., said beggars affect his business by scaring away customers.

Adi also said he wants to strike a balance between someone who is exercising First Amendment rights of free speech in front of his store versus someone who is being loud and obnoxious or threatening people.

Begging “can definitely ruin a customer’s experience” downtown, said Dan Martini, owner of Martini Brothers Burger Bar at 110 W. Federal St.

Martini said a greater police presence on downtown’s streets would help curb behaviors such as people begging for money.

“The presence is more important than law,” he said.

The federal court ruled Aug. 14, 2013, that a Michigan anti-begging statute, put into law in 1929, was unconstitutional “because it prohibits a substantial amount of solicitation, an activity that the First Amendment protects, but allows other solicitation based on content.”

The Michigan law found to be unconstitutional read: “A person is a disorderly person if the person is ... found begging in a public place.”

The case stemmed from two homeless men in Grand Rapids charged under the statute.

One was charged two times for holding signs. One stated: “Cold and hungry. God bless,” and the other stated: “Need job. God bless.” He was found guilty the first time, and after obtaining a lawyer at no cost, the other charge was dropped.

The second man was convicted for asking a person “Can you spare a little change?” for bus fare with a police officer hearing him.

“Michigan is not enforcing the state panhandling statute, although there could be local ordinances that are still in effect because the sixth circuit ruling would not have affected those,” said Andrea Bitely, spokeswoman for the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.

The court decision stated that 399 people were arrested or cited by police in Grand Rapids between 2008 and 2011 for begging.

Contributor: Brandon Klein, staff reporter