Opinion ID: 541744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Original Controversy

Text: 6 On November 28, 1989, the Legal Action Center for the Homeless (LACH) filed suit in the district court on behalf of itself and two homeless men, William B. Young and Joseph Walley, as representative plaintiffs for a class of homeless and needy persons who beg and panhandle in the New York City subway system. The gravamen of the complaint was that the prohibition of begging and panhandling in the subway contravenes the rights to free speech, due process and equal protection of the law. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the enforcement of 21 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 1050.6 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article I, Secs. 6, 8 and 11 of the New York State Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983. Pending the district court's action in declaring the prohibition unconstitutional, the plaintiffs also sought certain preliminary and injunctive relief. Accordingly, they entreated the district court to restrain the defendants from enforcing the prohibition, and to require the defendants to disseminate information throughout the subway system that begging and panhandling are lawful activities. 7 LACH named the TA, MTA and Metro-North as defendants. Under the direction of the MTA, the TA is empowered to establish regulations governing passenger conduct, in order to facilitate an effective, safe and reliable means of public transportation. N.Y.Pub.Auth.Law Sec. 1201 et seq. (McKinney 1982 & Supp.1990). Towards this end, the TA has maintained a longstanding ban on begging and panhandling in the subway system. 21 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 1050.6. 8 In January 1989, the MTA and TA approved the commencement of a rule-making process to amend 21 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 1050.6. The existing regulation stipulated that no person, unless duly authorized ... shall upon any facility or conveyance ... solicit alms, subscription or contribution for any purpose. Sec. 1050.6(b). The process, which included four public hearings, did not alter Sec. 1050.6(b), but only added a provision, Sec. 1050.6(c). The amendment permits greater utilization of the transit system for certain non-commercial activities such as: public speaking; distribution of written materials; solicitation for charitable, religious or political causes; and artistic performances, including the acceptance of donations. Sec. 1050.6(c). Pursuant to the amended regulation, these non-transit uses are subject to certain place restrictions. In particular, solicitation for charitable, religious or political causes is prohibited on subway cars, in areas not generally open to the public, within twenty-five feet of a token booth or fifty feet from the entrance to an authority office or tower, Sec. 1050.6(c)(1), in any location which interferes with access onto or off an escalator, stairway or elevator, Sec. 1050.6(c)(2), and on a subway platform while construction, renovation or maintenance work is actively underway on or near the platform ..., Sec. 1050.6(c)(3). The amended regulation, which continues the TA's long-standing ban against begging and panhandling, became effective in October 1989. 9 At that time, the TA commenced Operation Enforcement, a program designed to implement more effectively the long-standing prohibition on begging and panhandling in the subway. At the outset of Operation Enforcement, the TA distributed 1,500,000 pamphlets that summarized eleven TA rules, including No panhandling or begging. The TA rules were also displayed on 15,000 posters throughout the subway system. Both the pamphlets and the posters warned that violation of the TA rules could lead to arrest, fine and/or ejection. Plaintiffs Young and Walley acknowledge in affidavits submitted to the district court that they saw the posters and pamphlets during the information campaign of Operation Enforcement. Although they state their understanding that the TA intends to enforce the rules, they admit that they have continued to beg and panhandle. They further acknowledge that when the police have observed the behavior, rather than arrest them or issue a summons, the police have requested that they stop the proscribed activity or leave the system. 10 Before the district court was the following additional evidence. The New York City Subway System transports approximately 3,500,000 passengers on an average workday, operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and consists of 648 miles of track, 468 subway stations and over 6,000 subway cars. Many parts of the subway system are almost one hundred years old. In a timeworn routine of New York City life, each day a multitude descends the steep and long staircases and mechanical escalators to wait on narrow and crowded platforms bounded by dark tunnels and high power electrical rails. 11 In 1988, the TA initiated a lengthy study-process concerning quality of life problems experienced by riders in their use of the subway system. The study-process disclosed the fact that begging contributes to a public perception that the subway is fraught with hazard and danger. A research survey conducted by Peter Harris revealed that, in fact, two-thirds of the subway ridership have been intimidated into giving money to beggars. The survey also revealed that beggars are perceived to pervade the subway system, and that the ridership considers the presence of beggars as a significant problem. 12 As another aspect of the study-process, Detective Bernard Jacobs, a twenty-four year veteran of the Transit Authority Police and initiator of the Transit Police Crime Prevention Unit, met with numerous groups of citizens and passengers. He reported that passengers almost always voice their concern and discomfort about the prevalence of panhandling in the subway system. The passengers feel harassed and intimidated by panhandlers. Moreover, it is difficult from the police perspective to draw the fine line between panhandling and extortion. Many passengers have complained that demands for money by beggars and panhandlers include unwanted touching, detaining, impeding and intimidating. 13 An outside consulting company retained during the study-process confirmed the reality that begging and panhandling in the subway system pose a multi-faceted problem. Professor George Kelling, the president of the consulting company and an expert with extensive national and international experience in social problems, concluded that behavior such as begging generates high levels of fear in the passengers, thereby discouraging use of the system. In explaining the need for rules against begging in the subway, Kelling drew a distinction between ordinary city streets and the more constrictive New York City subway system. Open city streets allow pedestrians what sociologists term fate-control, or the ability to avoid and move away from an intimidating person. To the contrary, subway riders enjoy considerably less fluidity of movement and ability to control what happens to them. Whether standing in the crush of riders in a speeding subway car, waiting among the pressing masses on a platform, or swarming with the throng through a maze of mezzanines, staircases and ramps, the rider feels captive. As a result, Kelling concluded, [i]n the subway environment, begging is inherently aggressive even if not patently so. In addition, Kelling concluded that begging not only intimidates passengers, but also has the serious potential of creating an accident and injuring many people. As Kelling observed, the act of placing a cup before persons is often disruptive, startling and potentially dangerous. 14 During the course of the study-process, TA concerns were not limited to the safety of the ridership and their continued patronage. The Kelling affidavit earmarks research indicating that the homeless in the subways are generally males afflicted with serious mental illness and suffering from alcohol and/or drug abuse. Moreover, the sad statistics reveal that during a ten month period in 1989, an average of six homeless persons per month died in the subway, including fifteen persons who were struck by trains. As a result, Kelling counselled that this subset of the homeless should not be encouraged to beg and panhandle in the system for their own well-being.