I am not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on the radio. But I’m interested in the ramifications of “an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of Article 11 of the Metropolitan Code to prohibit aggressive panhandling and certain other panhandling activities.”

It defines “panhandling” thusly:

“Panhandling” means any solicitation made in person requesting an immediate donation of money or other thing of value for oneself or another person or entity. Purchase of an item for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is, in substance, a donation, shall be considered panhandling for the purpose of this section. Panhandling shall not include the act of passively standing or sitting, performing music, or singing with a sign or other indication that a donation is being sought but without any vocal request other than a response to an inquiry by another person.

It then declares that “it shall be unlawful to engage in the act of panhandling on any day after sunset or before sunrise.”

Now, again, I’m not a lawyer, but this definition seems surprisingly broad. For instance, I’ve run for office, and I’ve helped host fundraisers for others running for office. By my reading, the events at which I’ve solicited money would allow any attendee to press charges against me. Or against a man of the cloth at a sundown sermon asking for an offering.

Apparently, our version was closely modeled on one from Indianapolis [scroll down to Section 407-102]. The striking difference, of course, is their definition:

As used in this section,panhandling means any solicitation made in person upon any street, public place or park in the city, in which a person requests an immediate donation of money or other gratuity from another person, and includes but is not limited to seeking donations:

1. By vocal appeal or for music, singing, or other street performance; and
2. Where the person being solicited receives an item of little or no monetary value in exchange for a donation, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the transaction is in substance a donation.

One of the reasons the Indianapolis version is frequently used as a model is because it has already withstood a challenge to its constitutionality. If this was used as leverage by sponsor Walter Hunt, shouldn’t we have hewn a little more closely to the model definition? At least the original is a little more restrained in its definition, including locations. These are relegated to the declarations of unlawfulness in our version, and they don’t seem to be applied jointly with the time constraints. [See subsections B and C.]

I’d be interested to see whether this winds up being a story. Any lawyers in the crowd? If so, be careful not to solicit a fee after sundown if you provide an opinion…

Chris Wage has already offered his own lay person’s opinion of the ordinance.

UPDATE: According to Matt Leber of the Nashville Homeless Power Project, the bill is likely to be deferred till next year.

This post was written by Freddie