Restricting individuals from aggressive panhandling is a complicated issue that needs careful consideration to be addressed. For Fargo’s city council, it is essential to realize that limiting citizens on asking for money can violate the First Amendment. Therefore, before proceeding with a municipal ordinance, it is necessary to appeal to the existing statutes, cases, and recent scholarship, which will be the focus of the current paper.
First, proceeding with a municipal ordinance that restricts aggressive panhandling needs to be done with the acknowledgment of one of the most recent cases concerning panhandling and its connection to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert “articulated a new standard for courts to assess the content neutrality of laws regulating speech” (Lauriello, 2016, p. 1106). This case has largely determined the constitutionality of panhandling and attempts to restrict beggars from soliciting donations can potentially cause actions against the city.
Moreover, another significant complication is that the Eighth Circuit, which North Dakota belongs to, has already ruled Arkansas’s anti-panhandling law as a violation of freedom of speech. The law in question “allowed for the arrest of anyone standing or remaining for the purpose of asking for anything as charity or a gift in an aggressive or threatening manner” (Harris, 2019, para. 13). Nevertheless, the municipal council might want to consider other cities’ practices, such as the New York City statute. It bans aggressive behavior, “ranging from causing a reasonable person to fear bodily harm to mere suffering of unreasonable inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” (Lauriello, 2016, p. 1126). This regulation is not content-based and, therefore, cannot be ruled as the First Amendment violation.
Moreover, in the case of Fargo, it can be connected to the existing statute on disorderly conduct. It states that “An individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if… the individual… a) engages in harassing conduct by means of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person” (The North Dakota Legislative Council, 2020, 12.1-31-01). Upon omitting content-regulation, this can become a basis for an ordinance against aggressive panhandling.
References
Harris, J. (2019). Eighth circuit strikes down Arkansas anti-panhandling law.The Courthouse News. Web.
Lauriello, A. D. (2016). Panhandling regulation after “Reed v. Town of Gilbert”.Columbia Law Review, 116(4), 1105-1142. Web.
The North Dakota Legislative Council. (2020).The North Dakota century code. Web.