Opinion ID: 442046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unguided Discretion

Text: 17 As noted, ACORN's goal is to assist persons of low and moderate income to organize their neighborhoods so that they may petition authorities on issues of concern to them. In pursuit of this goal, ACORN's canvassing staff goes door-to-door informing residents of ACORN's program and seeking donations. II R. 10, 15. It is settled that such activities are protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 2847-2849, 81 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984) (charitable solicitations so intertwined with speech that they are entitled to protections of First Amendment); Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 833, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) (charitable appeals for funds, on the streets or door-to-door, involve a variety of speech interests--communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes--that are within the protection of the First Amendment); see also Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 614-15, 620-23, 96 S.Ct. 1755, 1758, 1760-1762, 48 L.Ed.2d 243 (1976); ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813, 816 (8th Cir.1983) (ACORN's canvassing and soliciting activities are clearly protected by the first amendment....). Indeed door-to-door distribution of circulars may be entitled to special solicitude because it is less expensive than feasible alternatives and therefore more important to a large segment of our society. See Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, --- U.S. at ---- n. 30, 104 S.Ct. at 2133 n. 30 (citing Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 146, 63 S.Ct. 862, 865, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943)). 18 Although door-to-door canvassing and soliciting, such as that in which ACORN engages, is protected by the First Amendment, such activities may be subject to reasonable regulation. However, regulation in this area must be done with narrow specificity. Hynes, supra, 425 U.S. at 617, 619-20, 96 S.Ct. at 1759, 1760. The law must be designed to serve the city's legitimate interests without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms .... 'Precision of regulation must be the touchstone ....'  Schaumburg, supra, 444 U.S. at 637, 100 S.Ct. at 836 (citations omitted) (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438, 83 S.Ct. 328, 340, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963)). In addition, though duly enacted laws are ordinarily presumed constitutional, when a law infringes on the exercise of First Amendment rights, its proponent bears the burden of establishing its constitutionality. E.g., ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813, 817 (8th Cir.1983); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.1981) (such laws are presumptively unconstitutional and state bears burden of justification); Espinosa v. Rusk, 634 F.2d 477, 482 (10th Cir.1980) (regulations which restrict exercise of First Amendment rights by requiring prior approval are suspect and face an unfavorable presumption of invalidity), summarily aff'd, 456 U.S. 951, 102 S.Ct. 2025, 72 L.Ed.2d 477 (1982). 19 Laws which vest municipal officials with the discretion to grant or deny a license or permit do not regulate with narrow specificity. As the Court stated in Munson: 20 But even if the Secretary were correct, and the waiver provision were broad enough to allow for exemptions whenever necessary, we would find the statute only slightly less troubling. Our cases make clear that a statute that requires such a license for the dissemination of ideas is inherently suspect. By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech. Under the Secretary's interpretation, charities whose First Amendment rights are abridged by the fundraising limitation simply would have traded a direct prohibition on their activity for a licensing scheme that, if it is available to them at all, is available only at the unguided discretion of the Secretary of State. 21 --- U.S. at ---- n. 12, 104 S.Ct. at 2851 n. 12 (citations omitted); see also Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 422, 63 S.Ct. 667, 669, 87 L.Ed. 873 (1943); Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619, 631 (5th Cir.1981), cert. dismissed, 458 U.S. 1124, 103 S.Ct. 5, 73 L.Ed.2d 1395 (1982); International Society for Krishna Consciousness of Atlanta v. Eaves, 601 F.2d 809, 822-23 (5th Cir.1979). 22 A law's vagueness or ambiguity may be responsible for vesting municipal officials with unguided discretion. Imprecise language may vest authorities with the discretion to determine which groups and individuals are entitled to exercise First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Schaumburg, supra, 444 U.S. at 640, 100 S.Ct. at 837 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (plurality of past decisions turned primarily, if not exclusively, upon amount of discretion vested in municipal authorities to grant or deny permits on the basis of vague or nonexistent criteria). Hynes, supra, 425 U.S. at 621-22 & n. 5, 96 S.Ct. at 1761 & n. 5, (ambiguities give police effective power to grant or deny permission to canvass for political causes); M.S. News Co. v. Casado, 721 F.2d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir.1983) (one of values offended by vague laws is that their imprecise standards permit arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement). 23 The trial judge believed that Golden's ordinance was sufficiently vague that it would be unconstitutional if the police were responsible for determining which organizations were eligible for exemptions. Trial Court op. at 4-5. However, he did not hold the ordinance invalid. In reaching this conclusion, the court apparently reasoned that the imprecision was acceptable because under the ordinance the city council, not the police, determine which organizations are entitled to exemptions. We must disagree. 24 We fail to see how it matters for First Amendment purposes whether unguided discretion is vested in the police or the city council. Vesting either authority with this discretion permits the government to control the viewpoints that will be expressed. Whether the city council or the police exercise this power, we believe that it runs afoul of the basic principle that forbids the government from regulating speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others. Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 104 S.Ct. at 2128; see also Troyer v. Town of Babylon, 483 F.Supp. 1135, 1139 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (government has no power to restrict communication because of its content, subject matter or familiarity), aff'd mem., 628 F.2d 1346 (2d Cir.), summarily aff'd, 449 U.S. 988, 101 S.Ct. 522, 66 L.Ed.2d 285 (1980). 25 In any event, a regulation of such activities cannot stand if it permits unguidged discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant or deny a permit or license which one must acquire before exercising First Amendment rights. Moreover, such a regulation is not saved by vesting such discretion in a governing administrative body instead of in police officers. For example, in Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S.Ct. 277, 2 L.Ed.2d 302 (1958), the Court struck down an ordinance under which the Mayor and council of the city had the discretion to grant or deny a permit. Id. at 321, 78 S.Ct. at 281. The Court held that the ordinance on its face imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint because it authorized the Mayor and the Council to refuse or grant a permit in their uncontrolled discretion. Id. at 325, 78 S.Ct. at 284. 26 Similarly, in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-51, 158-59, 89 S.Ct. 935, 938-939, 942-943, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969), the Court refused to uphold a conviction for demonstrating without a permit because the City Commission had virtually unbridled discretion to grant or deny the permit. Other contexts in which the Supreme Court has discussed this principle also suggest that it should be applied to a city council. See, e.g., Munson, supra, --- U.S. at ---- n. 12, 104 S.Ct. at 2851 n. 12 (Secretary of State); Schaumburg, supra, 444 U.S. at 628-29, 100 S.Ct. at 831-832 (public officials and state authority); Hynes, supra, 425 U.S. at 617, 96 S.Ct. at 1759 (municipal officials); see also Schaumburg, supra, 444 U.S. at 640, 100 S.Ct. at 837 (municipal authorities) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). 27 We are convinced that Golden's ordinance cannot stand. It is not drawn with the requisite narrow specificity, and instead permits exemptions to be granted at the city council's discretion. The ordinance broadly prohibits soliciting, peddling and poll taking. Then only if the city council determines that such activity is for a charitable, religious, patriotic or philanthropic purpose or otherwise provides a service or product so necessary for the general welfare of the residents of the city that such activity does not constitute a nuisance will an individual or organization be granted an exemption. The parties have stipulated that [n]o regulations or written interpretations of the Golden solicitation ordinances exist, and that [n]o written instructions, orders, memoranda, or directions regarding the enforcement of the Golden solicitation ordinances exist. I R. 17. Thus the Golden council is given a broad discretion to permit or ban the exercise of protected activities. 28 We agree with the trial court that the definition of the types of organizations that the city council may determine are exempt is certainly not specific. Trial Court op. at 4. [T]he words 'charitable, religious, patriotic, or philanthropic' may be considered vague and indefinite, and the catch-all or otherwise provides clause is uncertain in meaning. Id. at 5. 5 The ordinance does not sufficiently guide the city council. The record demonstrates that it is unclear whether an organization such as ACORN is even eligible for an exemption. See I R. 38, 58-60. In addition, the ordinance does not state that representatives of an organization must be present at a council meeting to receive an exemption, but the record reveals that the city council imposed such a requirement. III R. 76, 78, 80, 81; Brief of Defendants-Appellees. 29 The record is replete with evidence that exemptions are granted at the discretion of the city council, thereby giving that governing body the power to enforce the ordinance in a manner that favors some viewpoints over others. For example, an organization that sponsored a Christian Coffee House for teenagers was denied an exemption to distribute Christian literature, in its door-to-door solicitation. Apparently the city council simply felt that to permit this would be too great an invasion of residents' privacy. III R. 74. The Unification Church was denied an exemption on three occasions. On its third application, a representative of the Church was present and the record reveals that the city council discussed, among other things, an IRS investigation of the Church's tax exempt status, theology, the policy of not letting outside church groups solicit, and the constitutionality of denying the exemption to a religious group. The city council then denied the request. 6 III R. 80. 7 At the same time such groups as UNICEF, the Lucky Patch 4-H Club, and the Guatemala Relief Fund were granted exemptions. III R. 85, 79, 78. 30 The position that the City of Golden has taken on appeal confirms the breadth of discretion of the city council in granting exemptions. Golden argues that its ordinance is constitutional by noting that it does not absolutely prohibit solicitation as the ordinance in Schaumburg did. Rather the determination is made on a case by case basis by the city council through the exemption process. Brief of Defendant Appellees 11 (emphasis added). In this area of protected activity, such authority to grant an exemption on a case-by-case basis is precisely the sort of discretionary process that the Supreme Court has condemned. See, e.g., Munson, supra, --- U.S. at ---- n. 12, 104 S.Ct. at 2851 n. 12 (Our cases make clear that a statute that requires such a 'license' for the dissemination of ideas is inherently suspect. By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.). III Time, Place, and Manner 31 Golden's principal defense of the ordinance is that it is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, serving a legitimate governmental interest. See Brief of Defendants-Appellees 1, 7, 9. Golden further contends that the ordinance's prohibition is not absolute because even if ACORN does not obtain an exemption, it can still solicit if invited, or through the public forum. Id. at 8. 8 We are convinced, however, that the ordinance cannot be upheld as a time, place, and manner regulation. 32 The Golden ordinance does not meet the requirements for a valid time, place, and manner regulation. Such regulations are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of information. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, --- U.S. ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984); see also Regan v. Time, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. 3262, 3265, 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984); National Anti-Drug Coalition, Inc. v. Bolger, 737 F.2d 717, 723 (7th Cir.1984). Golden's ordinance, however, is not content neutral. The ordinance permits exemptions for organizations or individuals if the purpose of the solicitation is for a charitable, religious, patriotic or philanthropic purpose, or otherwise provides a service so necessary for the resident's general welfare that it does not constitute a nuisance. This approach contemplates a distinction based on content. Our case is thus similar to Regan v. Time, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3262, 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984). There the Court held that the portion of the statute banning a photographic reproduction of currency unless it was for philatelic, numismatic, educational, historical or newsworthy purposes could not be sustained as a valid time, place, and manner regulation because it discriminat[ed] on the basis of content. Id. at ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3265, 3266. The Court reasoned that determining the newsworthiness or educational value of a photograph can only be based on its content and message. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3265. 33 Similarly the city council's determination whether solicitation is for charitable, religious, patriotic or philanthropic purposes, or otherwise provides a service necessary to the general welfare of Golden's residents, clearly turns on the content of the message. 9 See also Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, ---- - ---- n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 2882 n. 18, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983) (statute that prohibits mailing unsolicited advertisement of matter designed, adopted or intended for preventing conception cannot be justified as time, place, and manner regulation in light of its content-based prohibition). Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment. Regan, supra, at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3267; see also Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 461, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289-2290, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). 34 In sum, we hold that the City of Golden's ordinance cannot be sustained as a valid time, place, and manner regulation since it clearly is not content neutral. IV