Opinion ID: 2266381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willie D. Williams

Text: On September 9, 1993, the Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia charged Mr. Williams with panhandling or begging in an aggressive manner in an area open to the general public, in violation of D.C. Act 10-34, effective June 9, 1993. At the time, Mr. Williams was 32 years old, unemployed and lived in a shelter for homeless people. He received approximately $111 in food stamps each month, and from time to time would ask people on the street for money. On September 8, 1993, according to his testimony, he positioned himself at the Metro Center subway station above ground area at 12th and F Streets, N.W., held a paper cup in his hand and as people stepped off the subway escalator, said: Sir, ma'am, can you spare a little change. Williams estimated that he was about six feet from the top of the escalator. He was arrested after asking Metro Transit police officers on casual clothes detail for change. Officer Darryl T. Godinez was one of the arresting officers. He stated that he observed Mr. Williams around 2:25 p.m. at the Metro Center subway station. According to him, Mr. Williams would get in front of people when they reached the top of the escalator, and would stick the cup in front of them, blocking their path, and asking and begging for money. The other arresting officer, Donald L. Holman, estimated that Mr. Williams was less than a foot or about a foot from the escalator. At the beginning of a hearing before a trial court commissioner on May 17, 1994, the District announced an oral amendment to the charge against Mr. Williams: [W]hat we want to do, then, is to amend the information to charge `non-aggressive' panhandling. Mr. Williams objected, but the commissioner allowed the oral amendment on the ground that since jeopardy had not attached, the District could dismiss the case and repaper it. He offered to postpone the hearing to allow more time for preparation, but counsel for Mr. Williams decided to proceed. Prior to hearing testimony, the commissioner also ruled on Mr. Williams' December 17, 1993, motion to dismiss the information against him on First and Fifth Amendment constitutional grounds. He denied the motion and concluded that the Panhandling Act was constitutional because: (1) the District had a compelling interest to ensure the safety and orderly maintenance of the flow of the customers, especially with respect to dangerous objects such as a moving escalator; (2) the statute is narrowly tailored and does not foreclose alternative channels of communication; (3) the statute is content neutral and the term no person includes charitable organizations; and (4) the term at a subway station is not vague because a reasonable man would know that being at the top of the escalators would mean that they were at the subway station. After ruling on the constitutionality issue, the commissioner heard the testimony of Officers Godinez and Holman, and Mr. Williams, and concluded that Mr. Williams violated § 3(b) of the Act. The only document designated for appeal which includes the commissioner's ruling is the Judgment and Commitment/Probation Order. According to that order, a five day jail sentence was imposed, but execution was suspended and Mr. Williams was ordered to complete ten hours of community service and ninety days of supervised probation. The sentence was stayed pending the outcome of any appeals. On May 27, 1994, Mr. Williams filed a motion asking that a trial judge review and reverse the judgment of the commissioner, on the ground that the commissioner erred in declaring the statute constitutional. On August 25, 1994, the trial judge affirmed the commissioner's judgment, solely on the ground that [t]he evidence presented to the Hearing Commissioner justified a finding that the defendant was soliciting for money, and that he was on Metro subway station property at the time of the solicitation. The trial judge's order also contains the following factual findings: On May 17, 1994, the defendant proceeded to trial before a Hearing Commissioner on the offense of panhandling. The information filed with the Court reads as follows: Williams, Willie D. on or about the 8th day of September, 1993, at 12th & F Streets, N.W., did then and there: Beg in an aggressive manner in an area open to the general public. After hearing extensive testimony, including that of the defendant, the Hearing Commissioner found the defendant guilty of the charge. At the trial, evidence was presented by two Metro police officers that the defendant was observed standing at the top of the Metro escalator with a styrofoam cup in his hand. The officers testified that as the Metro passengers exited the escalator the defendant placed the styrofoam cup in the face of the passengers, blocking their direct egress from the escalator. The trial judge's order summarized Mr. Williams' testimony that he was standing on the sidewalk and by the side of the Metro elevator with a McDonald styrofoam cup in his hand asking as passengers exited from the escalator, Sir, ma'am, can you spare a little change. Mr. Williams filed a motion on August 31, 1994, requesting a ruling on the constitutional issue which the commissioner had decided in favor of the District but which the trial court had not addressed at all. On October 11, 1994, the trial judge issued an order which rejected Mr. Williams' constitutional arguments, and concluded that the statute denying the defendant the right to panhandle on Metro property ... at the very top of an escalator on which people were exiting from the subway station constituted a valid time, place and manner restriction. The trial judge cited O'Brien v. United States, 444 A.2d 946 (D.C.1982). Mr. Williams filed an appeal on November 9, 1994. [2]