{"id":286,"date":"2024-03-26T00:30:17","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T00:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=286"},"modified":"2024-03-26T00:32:38","modified_gmt":"2024-03-26T00:32:38","slug":"give-and-it-shall-be-given-unto-thee-the-impact-of-wake-countys-anti-begging-regulation-on-low-income-individuals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2024\/03\/give-and-it-shall-be-given-unto-thee-the-impact-of-wake-countys-anti-begging-regulation-on-low-income-individuals\/","title":{"rendered":"Give and It Shall Be Given unto Thee \u2013 The Impact of Wake County\u2019s Anti-Begging Regulation on Low-Income Individuals \u202f\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Wake County, North Carolina, before offering someone on the street a dollar, you better make sure they have a permit to panhandle. If not, you are complicit in the commission of a criminal offense. As absurd as this sounds, this is exactly the case:\u202fWake County Statute \u00a7 94<\/a> makes it illegal to ask for money or items from another without first obtaining a permit. In this post, I first dive into the substance of the statute in question, and then discuss its racialized and socioeconomic impact on the community of Wake County. Next, the blog will analyze possible Constitutional infirmities inherent in anti-begging statutes. I\u2019ll conclude with potential alternatives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f\u00a0Classes of People Affected<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plainly, Wake County Statute \u00a7 94 requires people to obtain a permit in order to ask passersby for money. Though this process is relatively simple, it misses the point: The issue is not necessarily how easy or difficult the local government makes it to receive the permit, but who is generally seeking the permit. Restricting access to panhandling to those who have permits does not only significantly restrict freedom of speech, it sends a clear message<\/a> to a specific class of persons: low-income individuals. Low-income folks are, intuitively, going to be more likely to panhandle. This impact will have disproportional racial implications too. In Wake County, African Americans will be disproportionately affected<\/a>: 73% of the homeless population is made up of Blacks, while at the same time representing only 21% of the population. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a7 94 is a thinly veiled attempt to remove poor people from the streets. This may sound like a bold assertion, but the impact this legislation will have leaves little to the imagination. To create a law that necessarily applies to a specific class of persons, and to make compliance therewith a burden, allows police to fetter indigents. This will result in either indigents leaving Wake County to beg elsewhere (the aim that appears most likely), to comply with the law (a burden and an unconstitutional one at that), or to cease begging altogether and seek to gain funds elsewhere \u2013possibly creating the temptation to engage in real criminal activity to eat.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That being said, even the simplistic process still poses a barrier to indigent people, who are typically more concerned about finding a meal than navigating the permit process. Notwithstanding the fact that the permit is free, there is a real burden placed on indigents to obtain said permit:  locating the correct government agency to obtain the permit, finding transportation to file the permit paperwork,\u202fand not least of all, renewing <\/em>the permit every six months.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f\u202fConstitutional Issues<\/span><\/strong> \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f The likelihood that \u00a7 94 will disproportionately impact people of color is not the only reason the Wake County provision is problematic. There are legitimate reasons to believe it may well violate the Constitution too. To begin with, scholars have argued<\/a> that this law violates the First Amendment right to speech. Second, it may give a sneaky foothold to police by using the Terry<\/em> Doctrine rooted in the Fourth Amendment. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f First Amendment Challenges <\/em>\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f The First Amendment, made applicable to the states through Gitlow v. New York, <\/em>268 U.S. 652 (1925)<\/a> which states \u201cCongress shall make no law\u2026 abridging the freedom of speech.\u201d This means that no state, city nor county \u201chas [sic] power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content<\/a>.\u201d Though panhandling has never been explicitly deemed protected speech by the Supreme Court, in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., <\/em>576 U.S. 155 (2015), the Court labeled laws seeking to regulate speech based on its communicative content, as \u201ccontent-based\u201d laws. These laws are to be subject to strict scrutiny, the most difficult test for a regulation to pass. In application, this works to render significant favor and protection to panhandling and similar laws that seek to regulate speech based on its content.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, even the Second Circuit, in analyzing panhandling regulations, applies the standard found in Schaumburg v. Citizens<\/em>, 444 U.S. 620 (1980)<\/a> which found that since organized charities should receive constitutional protection under the First Amendment, thus by application, \u201cthere [is] little difference between those who solicit for organized charities and those who solicit for themselves\u2026\u201d<\/a> Other federal circuits, including the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits,<\/a> have likewise adopted similar rationales for treating panhandling as protected speech. While reasonable restrictions on panhandling may be tolerated, broad-sweeping provisions<\/a>\u2014like this one\u2014may be constitutionally suspect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth Amendment Challenges<\/em>\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This provision also creates complicated 4th<\/sup> Amendment concerns. This anti-begging law permits individuals in violation thereof to be arrested. Equipped with the letter of the law, police may not only book anyone in violation of \u00a7 94, but also stop anyone suspected <\/em>of being in violation therein. Herein lies the truly insidious nature of the law: if police have reasonable suspicion <\/em>that a crime is being committed, under Terry<\/em>, police may legally stop them and inquire about their business. Though respondents are not required to respond to police questions, they nevertheless could be subject to a Terry frisk <\/em>very easily as long as the police can assert, they suspected the individual to have a weapon on him\/her. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, if police find drugs during the search (which is entirely possible, given that research shows that roughly one third of homeless people<\/a> suffer from substance abuse), then the police have found a way to advance the charges and subject the indigent to more severe penalties like increased jail time, thus removing them off of the streets and out of the sight of that legislative body who sought to remove them in the first place. Put simply, this law gives police the ability to stop and frisk someone they suspect of panhandling without a license; it gives police the ability to stop someone just for being poor.\u202fNot only is this outcome wholly undesirable and inegalitarian, but it also exacerbates the disparity in simple drug possession prosecution and incarcerations.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equal Protection Concerns<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To come to the conclusion that a law is discriminatorily enforced against a specific class of persons, one need look no further than to what type of activity is regulated and who is predominantly engaged in this activity. <\/sup>As previously stated, African Americans make up a majority of the homeless population in Wake County;  it is therefore more likely they will be more affected by this statute. This triggers another issue for the statute, namely that the way the law is enforced brings up race classification protection by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This is especially the case \u201cwhere homeless persons are predominately members of minority groups that are suspect classes<\/a> under the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d Not only does the statute abridge the freedom of speech on its face, but it should also be scrutinized on its effects inflicted upon the specific race.\u202f \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alternative Approaches to Wake County Statute \u00a7 94<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its current state, Wake County\u2019s panhandling law simply cannot stand. Its harm is principally felt on indigents and minority groups like African Americans. There are serious First Amendment contentions, and it would open the door to troubling police practices under the Terry <\/em>doctrine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the spirit of a genuine concern for community welfare, of those begging and those who would choose to give, there are some alternatives to the current statute. There are less restrictive alternatives that address some of the legitimate governmental concerns behind panhandling legislations, like  preventing hazardous traffic conditions for drivers as well as pedestrians. Such an amendment to the current law could see curtailing of begging where it would impede safe traffic flow, like in busy intersections.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Closing Thoughts<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Basic decorum and good-will inform us that giving to a fellow human being is one of the kindest acts a person can do. It is against all dictates of reason and good nature for a community to cease or condition charitable actions. For a legislative body to enjoin a person\u2019s free speech to ask for money (or otherwise regulate this activity through requiring a permit) creates a society of wariness towards community members and destroys trust amongst them. Under such unfriendly laws, an individual who would give to one begging is placed in a position between acting with a generous heart or contributing to a criminal offense. Laws with these consequences are counter to any equitable community. \u00a7 94 should be amended or repealed to be less restrictive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Isaiah Palmer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Isaiah Palmer is a member of the University of North Carolina School of Law\u2019s class of 2025 and serves as a staff member for Volume 4 of the\u00a0North Carolina Civil Rights Law Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Wake County, North Carolina, before offering someone on the street a dollar, you better make sure they have a permit to panhandle. If not, you are complicit in the commission of a criminal offense. As absurd as this sounds, this is exactly the case:\u202fWake County Statute \u00a7 94 makes it illegal to ask for …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":289,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286\/revisions\/289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}