2012 ACLU Patriot of the Year Award

It was my great honor to receive the 2012 Patriot of the Year  Award from the Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union 

ACLU Board Member Peter Martin  awarding the certificate and a beautiful glass award

I accepted the award in memory of my father Paul, a life long card-carrying-member of the ACLU

This photo was entered into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit One over the objections of the City's legal counsel.  I think he feared it would too simply state our case and the absurdity of the City's broadly over reaching, and as we proved, cleary unconstitutional law.

Since winning our case, the city can no longer outlaw the holding of a sign based solely on the content of the message.

Times Standard on Arcata Lawsuit

 Judge tosses most of Arcata panhandling ordinance, city can appeal; Salzman: 'We knew we were in the right'

Grant Scott-Goforth/The Times-Standard
09/27/2012

The 2010 Arcata panhandling ordinance has been largely thrown out by Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen.

The ordinance banned panhandling in certain locations around the city, including major intersections, pedestrian bridges and the entrances and exits to businesses. Reinholtsen stated in a court ruling this week that location restrictions were “largely unconstitutional.”

The ordinance also banned “aggressive panhandling,” but the legal challenge by Arcata resident Richard Salzman and attorney Peter Martin did not address that portion of the law.

”There appears to be no dispute that Arcata has legitimate interests in prohibiting 'aggressive panhandling,' so the Court will not dwell on that,” the court ruling states.

Martin called the judge's decision “detailed and thoughtful.”

”We're very gratified by the court's ruling,” Martin said. “We're happy to see that the city of Arcata will now have to respect the free speech of all of its citizens.”

A judgment -- the final action in the lawsuit -- will be entered in favor of Salzman on behalf of the judge. The city will have 60 days to appeal.

Arcata City Manager Randy Mendosa said the city attorney and the attorney defending the city in the lawsuit will review the ruling and likely meet in closed session with the city council prior to its Oct. 3 meeting.

”All we can say is that we are currently analyzing
the court's decision,” Mendosa said.

Mayor Michael Winkler said the city attorney worked hard to draft the ordinance based on similar laws in other cities.
”I'm disappointed,” he said.

The council and staff will meet with the city attorney about what steps to take next, Winkler said. That meeting has not been scheduled.

Salzman said he was pleased with the ruling and had mixed feelings about the possibility of an appeal.

”We knew we were in the right,” he said, adding that the city overreached and forced him to use the judicial system. “It's a testimony to the government that our founders so brilliantly structured.”

”I'm of two minds about appealing,” Salzman continued. “I'd prefer that they don't waste taxpayer money on a folly like that.”

Still, Salzman said, he is confident that the ruling would stand if appealed, making the ruling case law that other jurisdictions could reference in similar cases.

Reinholtsen struck down large portions of the law, allowing only minor exceptions to the ordinance.

”The core difficulty with evaluating the Ordinance is that it pits Arcata's legitimate interests against the speech rights of individuals,” Reinholtsen wrote in the ruling.

The ruling states that Arcata has a legitimate interest in “preventing congestion and controlling traffic” and that targeted panhandling can be disruptive to traffic flow. It goes on to state that Arcata has a valid interest in protecting its citizens from unwanted communications, or “the right to be let alone.”

However, Reinholtsen ruled that the restrictions infringed on constitutional rights.

”It is only a slight exaggeration that new laws that restrict speech based on the content of that speech are impossible to uphold,” the ruling states.

”In sum, the Court finds that the legitimate interests advanced by Arcata with respect to the targeted panhandling prohibition are insufficient in most instances to justify the infringement of solicitors' right, and, for that reason, it is largely unconstitutional,” the ruling states.

”The Court rules that the location-specific prohibition on panhandling is unconstitutional, with two exceptions. The exceptions are that Arcata may continue to prohibit 'panhandling' within twenty feet of any unenclosed ATM, and Arcata may continue to prohibit 'panhandling' 'in any public transportation vehicle,'” the ruling reads.

Public transit vehicles are not considered public fora, according to the ruling.

The court ruled that people using an ATM have their money and financial security at stake, and that “soliciting people while they are using ATMs heightens the feelings of duress and intimidation that can be felt by those solicited.”
The full text of the ruling can be viewed online at www.times-standard.com.

Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth@times-standard.com.

LA Times on Arcata Lawsuit

Arcata panhandling law mostly struck down by judge

A Humboldt County judge says provisions of the ordinance banning non-aggressive panhandling within 20 feet of stores, intersections, parking lots and bus stops are unconstitutional.

By Lee Romney, Los Angeles Times
September 27, 2012

 A homeless man who calls himself Big Al sits on a guardrail with his pet mastiff on California Highway 101 in Arcata last June. Big Al was prosecuted under the city's ordinance restricting panhandling. (Los Angeles Times / July 10, 2012)

SAN FRANCISCO — A Humboldt County Superior Court judge has struck down as unconstitutional most of an ordinance that banned non-aggressive panhandling in Arcata within 20 feet of any retail store, intersection, parking lot or bus stop, among other places.

The ruling, released Wednesday, allows the North Coast town to enforce the ban under only two narrow circumstances: near unenclosed ATMs and on public transit vehicles.

The college town long has been a magnet for vagrants, who congregate on its New England-style central plaza. And officials long have struggled with how to address the often-annoying requests for money, booze or pot.

Passed by the City Council two years ago, the sweeping ordinance banned aggressive panhandling — a stance that was not challenged in court.

However, Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen sided overwhelmingly with a resident who challenged portions of the law that forbade non-aggressive panhandling — including the holding of a sign — in vast swaths of the town's commercial districts and beyond.

"Arcata may not restrict solicitation merely because it makes people uncomfortable," Reinholtsen wrote. "To put it simply, speech rights prevail in a public forum (e.g., public parks, streets, etc.) in the absence of unique circumstances."

While Reinholtsen found the ordinance "narrowly tailored" to address the problem officials sought to remedy, when weighing the city's interests against free-speech rights he concluded that the balance "disfavors Arcata in most instances."

The lawsuit was brought by Richard Salzman, who carries a copy of the Constitution in the pocket of his sport coat. He said he was pleased that the judge "agrees with me in general that the city overreached, and that this is an infringement of free speech."

Mayor Michael Winkler had voted for the broad restrictions along with two others on the five-member council after receiving legal assurances that a number of cities had approved similar bans.

"I'm disappointed," Winkler said. "I thought it was carefully crafted, and I'm sorry that the ruling was what it was."

A report last fall by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty found that slightly more than half of 234 cities surveyed had bans on aggressive panhandling, the same proportion had outlawed it in specific areas, and one-fourth forbade begging citywide. Most of the ordinances have not been challenged.

Winkler declined to comment on the content of the ruling or the possibility of an appeal, saying the city attorney had advised officials not to do so.

Attorney Peter Martin, who represented Salzman and serves with him on the board of the Humboldt Civil Liberties Defense Fund, said the judge "really did wrestle with the issues, and if there is an appeal it will show he made a real effort to analyze the law and balance it on both sides."

Martin said he doubted that Arcata voters "want to see their council spend any more money appealing." But if the city were to appeal and lose, "it would create a statewide rule."

lee.romney@latimes.com

L.A. TIMES takes editorial position in support of Free Speech Lawsuit against City of Arcata

L.A. TIMES EDITORIAL
Arcata vs. panhandlers
The city's frustration with beggars is understandable, but its remedy is too broad and too punitive.

August 8, 2012

The city of Arcata, just north of Eureka in Humboldt County, has long been a mecca for homeless and transient young people who gather in its public square, often soliciting food or money. But after years of allowing their public begging, the city passed an ordinance in 2010 that forbids not only "aggressive panhandling" — touching or blocking a person, repeatedly asking for money, using abusive language, approaching an occupied vehicle — but all soliciting within 20 feet of ATMs, supermarkets, retail stores, restaurants, bus shelters and stops, and any intersection. It also prohibits soliciting on a bus, inside public parking lots and on pedestrian foot bridges. The city defines panhandling as asking for money or goods or even holding up a sign requesting a handout. The result is effectively a ban on begging in the commercial area of Arcata.

The city's frustration is understandable, but its remedy is too broad and too punitive, emblematic of the excesses that many municipalities succumb to in confronting the unsightly but all too human problems associated with panhandling.

A lawsuit filed last year— which is expected to be ruled on soon — argues that the ordinance violates 1st Amendment rights because it is "constitutionally overbroad." It is so vague that it prohibits displaying a sign asking for money, and so broad that Girl Scouts couldn't set up a table outside a supermarket to sell cookies.

Aggressive panhandling is another matter. When asking for money becomes intimidating, speech drifts into conduct, and governments have the right to rein it in. The lawsuit takes no issue with that portion of the ordinance.

The city is also, arguably, acting in the interest of protecting public safety when it forbids panhandling within 20 feet of an ATM or in semi-confined spaces such as a pedestrian bridge or a parking structure. In these cases, there is a possibility that those who are hit up for money will feel trapped or vulnerable. People should not be forced to walk a gantlet of panhandlers when they must use a bridge. Although this part of the Arcata ordinance may not pass the so-called captive audience rule (courts have recognized that public transit vehicles are not free-speech forums), it seems reasonable.

The ordinance goes too far when it forbids panhandling of any kind outside of restaurants, stores and eateries. The court should strike down these provisions. Yes, it can be irritating to be confronted by poverty while exiting a store, but the tender sensibilities of shoppers cannot be allowed to outweigh the rights of Americans to express themselves, even if it’s to ask for money.

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-arcata-panhandling-law-20120808,0,7704489.story

---
-------
Newspapers have long defended freedom of the press so while it is flattering, it's not that surprising that a prominent national paper like the LA Times would be willing to take a position in support of a 1st Amendment issue.  It is however disappointing that not one of the seven newspapers here in Humboldt County, or any of the other Northern California newspapers have shown the testicular fortitude to also take a position in support of the free speech rights of all Americans.
-Richard