Source: http://www.citizensdemandingjustice.org/2012/09/holding-sign-asking-for-money-protected.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:26:33+00:00

Document:
A recent ruling struck down the Michigan ordinance against Panhandling. The ACLU went to court for a local Homeless Air Force Veteran. The defendant from Grand Rapids is a recognized face on off ramps from the 131 expressway with a sign requesting cash. Them Michigan Panhandling law did not pass constitutional muster because the court ruled that (Even though inconvenient and a bad image for a thriving community) someone asking for financial help is considered freedom of speech. A link to the entire document for this ruling is posted here.
The Defendant, Mr. Speet is an adult resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan and has been homeless for approximately two years. (Verified Compl., docket # 1, at ¶ 21.) He receives food stamps, and he gleans cash by collecting and redeeming bottles, cans, and scrap metal. (Id. at ¶ 22.) He has no other sources of income. He occasionally seeks assistance from others by holding up a sign asking for work or help.
(Id. at ¶¶ 22-23.) When seeking work or help, Mr. Speet holds up a sign but does not approach passersby directly. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Mr. Speet sees himself as informing people about his situation and his need for help by holding up his sign. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Some of his signs have read, for example, "Cold and Hungry, God Bless," and "Need Job, God Bless." (Id. at ¶ ¶ 30, 40.) He has obtained odd jobs, such as mowing lawns, and painting a garage, from individuals seeing his sign.
(Id. at ¶ 27.) Mr. Speet was arrested and prosecuted in Grand Rapids twice for begging in 2011. (Id. at ¶ 29.) On one of those occasions, he was jailed.
Mr. Sims, an adult resident of Grand Rapids, is an Air Force veteran. (Id. at ¶ 52.) He has a disability and receives approximately $260 per month in state disability insurance. (Id.) He also receives food stamps. (Id.) Mr. Sims attends Grand Rapids Community College, in pursuit of a career in electronics.
(Id. at ¶ 53.) He occasionally begs for money, typically by asking individuals if they can spare change for a veteran, and moving on if the individual declines.
Case 1:11-cv-00972-RJJ Doc #25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 16 Page ID#350 whether that person could spare some change. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60.) He ultimately pled guilty to a panhandling charge and was fined $100.
MICH. COMP. L. § 750.167(1)(h). A person convicted under section 750.167(1)(h) is "guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both." MICH. COMP. L. § 750.168(1).
The State of Michigan and the City of Grand Rapids (collectively, the "government") assert that Michigan's statutory ban on public begging is constitutional on its face, and they emphasize that the statute serves several desirable purposes. According to the government, the ban helps businesses, because the presence of people begging in or near business establishments may deter others from patronizing those businesses. The government also emphasizes that the ban on begging helps prevent fraud, because beggars may not use the contributions for the purposes donors intend. Indeed, the government observes, some beggars may use such contributions for alcohol and illegal drugs.
The government also points out that begging can be intimidating or annoying to others and that the ban helps protect the public from harassment.
is possible to conceive an impermissible application, without more, does not render a statute facially overbroad. However, statutes "that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid even if they have legitimate application."
Id. Criminal statutes "must be scrutinized with particular care." Id. at 459.
F.3d 524, 533 (6th Cir. 2010). In making that determination, the Court considers the scope of the restriction, examining particularly whether the restriction is content-specific and to what forums the restriction applies. Id. In general, the more a content-based speech restriction applies to traditional public forums, as opposed to more limited venues, the stricter the scrutiny, and the less likely the restriction will pass muster.
Id. A. Begging Includes Protected Speech and Expressive Conduct.
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945); Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976); Bates v.
are within the protection of the First Amendment."
Id. The same rationale logically applies to begging, which involves similar speech interests. As the Second Circuit observes, [w]hile . . . begging does not always involve the transmission of a particularized social or political message . . . it usually involves some communication of that nature.
however, the presence of . . . [a] person holding out his or her hand or a cup to receive a donation itself conveys a message of need for support and assistance. We see little difference between those who solicit for organized charities and those who solicit for themselves in regard to the message conveyed. The former are communicating the needs of others while the latter are communicating their personal needs. Both solicit the charity of others. The distinction is not a significant one for First Amendment purposes.
Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 F.2d 699, 704 (2d Cir. 1993). See also Smith v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[l]ike other charitable solicitation, begging is speech entitled to First Amendment protection."). For First Amendment purposes, begging and charitable solicitations are both entitled to protection.
382 (1992) (citations omitted). Regardless of whether begging is characterized as speech, expressive conduct, or a combination of the two, it is entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
6v sweeps the speech, expression, and conduct elements into a single category of "begging." Because speech and expression are in the mix, the protections of the First Amendment apply.
B. The Government's Asserted Basis for the Ban of Begging Does not Pass Constitutional Muster.

References: § 750
 § 750
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.