People v. Barton

861 N.E.2d 75, 828 N.Y.S.2d 260 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was ticketed for violating section 44-4 (H) when he waded into traffic on a highway exit ramp soliciting money from motorists. The ordinance specifies that 'no person on a sidewalk or alongside a roadway shall solicit from any occupant of a motor vehicle that is on a street or other public place.' The City adopted the ordinance to protect persons from threatening, intimidating or harassing behavior, to keep public places safe and attractive for use by all members of the community and to maintain and preserve public places where all of the community can interact in a peaceful manner. It was 'aimed at specific conduct, and not at any type of speech or expression,' because 'the conduct itself is offensive. It treats all solicitation 'the same whether it be for an individual or a charity, and whether the cause may be deemed by some to be favored or disfavored.' D defendant moved to dismiss contending that it was overbroad in violation of the Free Speech. It impermissibly 'impact[ed] activities beyond its intended reach' as it applied not only to aggressive panhandling but 'to anyone who would solicit' motorists from the sidewalk, including an individual holding up a sign simply stating 'Food,' or participating in the city firefighters' annual 'Fill-the-Boot' fundraising campaign. The Court agreed, declaring it unconstitutional and dismissing the accusatory instrument. The state may enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The ordinance was content-neutral, but lacked narrow tailoring because it 'allow[ed] for the prosecution of those . . . guilty of nothing more than peacefully asking for assistance.' The County Court reversed. County Court reversed, concluding that section 44-4 (H) was content-neutral, sufficiently narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternative channels of communication.