Judge Withdraws Ruling Opposing Anti-Begging Law

SAN FRANCISCO â€”  A federal judge has withdrawn his 1991 ruling that discouraged police from enforcing a California law against panhandling.

In his earlier ruling, U.S. District Judge William Orrick said that the law violated freedom of expression. But in a decision made public Thursday, Orrick said it would be unfair to leave his ruling on the books because the original lawsuit has been settled in a way that effectively prevents an appeal.

The ruling removes a cloud from the law and leaves police in California free to enforce it without the risk of having to pay damages out of their own pockets, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Morris Beatus, the state’s lawyer.

The century-old law makes it a crime, punishable by a fine and up to six months in jail, to “accost any person in a public place or in any place open to the public� and beg for money.

It was challenged in 1989 by Celestus Blair Jr., who had been arrested five times in two years. The charges were dropped each time. Blair pursued the suit even after he got a job as a $36,000-a-year trolley driver with the city of San Francisco.

Orrick ruled in 1991 that begging was “a form of speech possessing obvious political relevance� about the speaker’s plight and society’s treatment of the poor. He said other laws protect the public from threats and coercion without suppressing speech.

The ruling was not binding on other courts. But it has influenced other judges, including one who cited Orrick’s decision in a ruling last year barring enforcement of ordinances in Berkeley that banned asking for money in certain public areas.

Also, as Orrick noted in his latest ruling, police who enforce a law that has been ruled unconstitutional can be sued personally for damages.

After Orrick ruled the law unconstitutional, Blair settled his damage claim against the city for $4,000. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled that the case was moot and refused to decide whether the law was constitutional.

The city and the state, which had entered the case to try to defend the law, asked Orrick to remove his ruling from the books because it could not be appealed. The judge agreed.