The High Cost Of Panhandling: Ticket And Fine Risks

Panhandling, also known as begging, is a common issue in many communities, with police departments receiving numerous calls related to this activity. While panhandling is generally protected by the First Amendment, there are certain restrictions and regulations in place. For instance, stepping into the roadway to accept money or soliciting on private property without permission is considered a violation and can result in a ticket or fine. The effectiveness of these measures is debated, with some arguing for the protection of free speech and others highlighting the need to address the underlying causes of homelessness and poverty.

Panhandling is protected under the First Amendment

Panhandling is a form of solicitation or begging. It is generally covered under the First Amendment, but this does not mean that people can panhandle wherever and however they please. The First Amendment puts limits on panhandling, just as it does on speech and other expressive conduct.

Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or menace, often without exchanging any words at all. Aggressive panhandling is soliciting coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions.

In recent years, an increasing number of US cities have enacted ordinances restricting panhandling due to the influx of people living in public spaces. These measures include making it illegal to ask for money in public, and prohibiting activities such as sleeping, camping, eating, and sitting in public spaces.

The growing number of ordinances criminalizing panhandling has led to a corresponding growth in support of panhandlers' free speech rights under the First Amendment. While the Supreme Court has never directly addressed this issue, its decisions provide some guidance on the regulation of direct solicitation by charities as opposed to street beggars.

In Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), the Court held that "solicitation for money is closely intertwined with speech" and that "solicitation to pay or contribute money is protected under the First Amendment". However, since Schaumburg, the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on a variety of direct solicitations where cities have found such activities inimical to the purpose of public space.

In 2015, the US Supreme Court explained in Reed v. Town of Gilbert that laws that discriminate against speech on their face or in their purpose are considered content-based and are subject to strict scrutiny. The Court's decision in Reed has had an impact on panhandling litigation, with lower courts invalidating numerous panhandling laws as impermissible content-based restrictions on speech.

Some panhandling laws only regulate the location where solicitations for money take place. Even under Reed, such laws may be content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.

City ordinances restricting solicitation in a public place must pass intermediate scrutiny and:

• Be neutral in content
• Be narrowly tailored
• Leave open ample alternative channels of communication
• Serve a significant government interest that is pressing and legitimate

Even under intermediate scrutiny, many panhandling ordinances have been invalidated.

Passive vs. aggressive panhandling

There are two types of panhandling: passive and aggressive. Passive panhandling is a non-threatening form of begging, often without the exchange of any words—the panhandler simply holds out a cup or a hand. This form of panhandling is usually a low police priority and is often tolerated by law enforcement.

Aggressive panhandling, on the other hand, involves soliciting coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions. Aggressive panhandling can include vocal appeals such as asking, requesting, badgering, sympathy appeals, harassment, threats, or demands. It can also involve non-vocal appeals such as the use of signs, gestures, postures, children, animals, or props. If a panhandler uses physical force or extremely aggressive actions, their actions may constitute robbery.

Aggressive panhandling is considered a social problem and a legal term for unlawful forms of public begging. Some cities and states have specific ordinances or statutes that define and prohibit aggressive panhandling. For example, Bloomington, Indiana, defines aggressive panhandling as making noise, repeated demands, or choosing to solicit in intimidating places such as near ATMs or cars.

In recent years, an increasing number of U.S. cities have restricted panhandling due to concerns about public safety, tourism, and the impact on small businesses. These restrictions have sparked debates about the First Amendment rights of panhandlers and the criminalization of homelessness. While some scholars argue that regulations on ordinary panhandling can be distinguished from those on aggressive panhandling, others argue that such regulations deprive panhandlers of their free speech rights and unfairly target the homeless.

Panhandling myths

Panhandlers make a lot of money

One source states that panhandling is a lucrative business, with an average hourly rate of $50. However, this is not necessarily true. A 2013 survey in Oregon City found that a panhandler made on average $11.10 an hour, which is just over $2 above the minimum wage. Another source states that the average panhandler makes about $300 per month, which equates to about $10 a day. This is backed up by a 2013 survey in San Francisco, which found that most panhandlers make less than $25 per day.

Panhandlers will spend donated money on drugs or alcohol

Several studies show that when money is donated to panhandlers, most spend it primarily on food and other necessities. A survey conducted in 2001 on panhandlers' income and spending patterns in Toronto found that their single largest expense was food, followed by tobacco, then alcohol and/or drugs. Similarly, a 2013 survey in San Francisco found that 94% of panhandlers spent the money they received on food, while 44% spent it on drugs or alcohol.

Panhandlers are lazy and don't want to work

The success of work programs in cities like Albuquerque, New Mexico, show that panhandlers who can work will if given the opportunity to do so. A survey conducted in 2001 on panhandlers' income and spending patterns in Toronto found that 70% would prefer a minimum-wage job over panhandling.

Anti-panhandling ordinances will decrease panhandling

Panhandling is caused by a lack of adequate, affordable housing, low wages, lack of healthcare, and other systemic causes. Addressing people's survival needs is the best way to end panhandling. Providing housing and services costs two to three times less than cycling homeless persons through the criminal justice system.

Panhandling alternatives

Panhandling is a form of solicitation or begging, often associated with homelessness. While panhandling is protected by the First Amendment as a form of speech, it has increasingly been regulated by municipalities due to concerns about public safety, tourism, and the impact on small businesses.

There are various reasons why someone might resort to panhandling. It is often a result of a lack of adequate housing, low wages, lack of access to healthcare, and other systemic issues. Some people who panhandle may be dealing with health problems, unemployment, family conflicts, or other challenging circumstances.

Myths and facts about panhandling:

• Myth: I should not give panhandlers money.
• Fact: The decision to donate money is a personal choice. There is nothing wrong with giving money, and if you choose not to, you can politely decline.
• Myth: Panhandlers will spend the money on drugs or alcohol.
• Fact: Studies show that most panhandlers spend donated money on food and other necessities.
• Myth: Panhandlers make a lot of money.
• Fact: On average, panhandlers make around $300 per month, indicating that they are asking for help because they are in need.
• Myth: Panhandlers are lazy and don't want to work.
• Fact: Work programs in cities like Albuquerque, New Mexico, have shown that panhandlers who can work will take up opportunities if given the chance.
• Myth: Anti-panhandling laws will reduce panhandling.
• Fact: Panhandling is a result of underlying social issues, and addressing these issues, such as providing housing and services, is a more effective solution.

Alternatives to panhandling:

• Day labor programs: In Syracuse, New York, the county and private donors have raised $200,000 for the Hiring Ground initiative. This program offers panhandlers lunch and $50 at the end of the day in exchange for day labor. A similar program has been implemented in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
• Same-day pay programs: Philadelphia has partnered with the Mural Arts Program to offer individuals an alternative to panhandling. Through a lottery program, people can assist with mural painting and receive a paycheck for their work. This program also connects individuals to city services, such as housing and mentorship.
• Referral to social services: Instead of giving money to panhandlers, you can refer them to local social services that can provide more sustainable support. For example, United Way Lake County's 211 program offers a range of services and housing resources.
• Creative approaches: Some panhandlers use creative approaches to add value or entertain people instead of simply begging. This could include performing comedy routines, offering to sweep or pick up trash, or providing information or directions.

These alternatives aim to address the underlying causes of panhandling and provide individuals with opportunities to earn an income through legal means, rather than relying solely on donations.

How to help panhandlers

While panhandling is protected under the First Amendment, there are some restrictions on where and how it can be done. For example, stepping into the roadway to accept money is prohibited, and if a panhandler is asked to leave private property and refuses, they are considered to be trespassing.

If you want to help panhandlers, it is recommended that you do not give them money directly. This is because giving money to panhandlers does not address the underlying reasons for their situation and may encourage more panhandling. Instead, you could:

• Offer food or water, although be aware that they may be picky eaters, have allergies, or may not trust the food you give them
• Give them a referral card for local services that can help them, such as homeless shelters
• Buy a street newspaper or a gift card for a local shop
• Donate food to a food bank
• Donate money to organisations that work with homeless people, or volunteer for such organisations
• Treat them with dignity and respect; look them in the eye, smile, and acknowledge them as a person

Frequently asked questions