Jamie Munks
The State Journal-Register
The city of Springfield’s panhandling regulations are facing yet another legal challenge as an attorney for a pair of Springfield panhandlers filed a lawsuit objecting to a new “privacy zone” aldermen just approved Tuesday. The lawsuit challenging the newly established privacy zone, which bars panhandlers from stepping within 5 feet of someone whom they’re asking for money, was filed Wednesday, the day after the new ordinance was passed.
Another portion of the city’s anti-panhandling regulations was struck down last month by a federal appeals court. The court upheld the contention that prohibiting verbal requests for money is unconstitutional because it infringes on First Amendment rights. Norton and Karen Otterson, both of Springfield, initiated that lawsuit against the city in 2013.
City officials said earlier this week that after a review by the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was denied, they planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court ruling reversed a previous decision that upheld the city’s panhandling law. At issue specifically was the ordinance’s ban on verbal requests for immediate monetary donations. The three-judge panel applied a June Supreme Court decision, Reed v. Gilbert, to Springfield’s ordinance.
The “aggressive panhandling” part of the city’s ordinance, which doesn’t allow things like following someone after they’ve denied a request for money or panhandling from people who are waiting in line outside a business, wasn’t struck down by last month’s ruling, and only the new panhandling perimeter is being challenged in the new lawsuit.
“The only thing we’re challenging is the 5-foot privacy zone,” attorney Mark Weinberg said.
Jim Zerkle, the city’s corporation counsel, told aldermen at last week’s committee of the whole meeting that the city’s legal team believed it could defend the 5-foot zone if it faced a legal challenge.
Ward 7 Ald. Joe McMenamin suggested holding off on approving the privacy zone Tuesday, but the council voted anyway. McMenamin said Thursday that he’s in favor of the privacy zone, but he’s concerned that the courts won’t see things the same way.
“There’s no need to antagonize the federal courts, nor the plaintiffs, when the previous case remains active and, to this point, adverse to the city,” McMenamin said.
When coming up with the local rules, Mayor Jim Langfelder’s administration consulted other anti-panhandling ordinances, including one from Chehalis, Washington, which is about 70 miles south of Seattle. That city’s ordinance establishes a 1-foot perimeter that panhandlers aren’t supposed to enter.
Langfelder said his goal in establishing the privacy zone was to give Springfield police more specific parameters for enforcing the local ordinance.
***
Joe McMenamin for Ward 7 