The cities of Jackson, Ridgeland and Madison have one thing in common when it comes to panhandling: None of them have ordinances prohibiting it.
The cities repealed their panhandling ordinances after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) alerted their leaders several years ago that their ordinances probably infringed on First Amendment rights.
Drive along the I-55 Frontage Road from Lakeland Drive to County Line Road and on other city streets, and you will come across panhandlers with signs asking for money to buy food or for other needs.
While some drivers stop and offer money, a bottle of water or other assistance, others ask: What can be done?
Not all panhandlers are homeless and not all homeless are panhandlers.
“I know there are people panhandling and they’re not drug addicts,” Jill Buckley, executive director of Stewpot, which provides numerous services for people in need, said in a 2023 Northside Sun article.
“It’s just how they survive.”
A city can pass an ordinance about panhandling, but the task would require expert legal advice, countless hours of thought and study and could face possible scrutiny in court.
“If you get legal counsel, it can be done,” said Matt Steffey, professor of law at Mississippi College School of Law.
“The tendency of city leaders is often to shy away for fear of litigation and to overreact because they don’t know the law concerning panhandling.”
Steffey said he can understand how cities can be reticent to enact an ordinance against panhandling, given the threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
“The ACLU is very effective in this regard,” he said, noting that the ACLU could take up the cause and it could cost five- or six-figures in legal fees to fight back. If the ACLU wins, the city would have to pay their attorneys’ fees.”
Whether someone is collecting money at an intersection for a nonprofit or someone who appears to be homeless is asking for cash to buy food, the government cannot discriminate on the basis of the content of their speech, he said.
“The government can regulate the time and place and manner of in-person solicitation,” he said. “That’s the when, the where and how of it.”
Government can’t shut down all channels of in-person solicitation, he said, but it can limit aggressive or threatening conduct and put some restrictions on places and times when in-person solicitation is not allowed.
The Mississippi Legislature passed House Bill 668 in 2018 that went into effect in July of that year about panhandling. The bill repealed Mississippi Code Sections 97-35-29 to 99-29-13, which defined vagrancy and spelled out penalties for those arrested for it. Among the definitions, vagrants included “every able-bodied person who shall go begging for a livelihood” or panhandlers.
Vagrants, under the repealed sections, were also classified as common gamblers, prostitutes, keepers of houses of prostitution and able-bodied individuals who had no property or means of support.
What House Bill 688 did was to take off the books overly broad laws about panhandling, he said.
“We have a sorry history of vagrancy laws that target African American citizens,” Steffey said, “some of which were originally passed to criminalize and funnel African American citizens into the criminal justice system in the years after Reconstruction.”
The city of Ridgeland repealed its panhandling ordinance in November 2018. The city received a letter by email that was dated Aug. 28, 2018 from Joshua Tom, legal director for the ACLU of Mississippi, about its ordinance.
The letter states: “Since the landmark Reed v. Gilbert case in 2015, every panhandling ordinance challenged in federal court25 of 25 to date—including many with features similar to the ones in Ridgeland (“the City”), has been found constitutionally deficient.”
The letter goes on to say: “At least 31 additional cities have repealed their panhandling ordinances when informed of the likely infringement of First Amendment rights. The City’s ordinance not only almost certainly violates the constitutional right to free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is also bad policy, and numerous examples of better alternatives now exist which the City could draw on. We call on the City to immediately repeal the Ordinance and instead consider more constructive alternatives or risk potential litigation.”
The letter states: “Numerous communities have created alternatives that are more effective, and leave all involved homeless and non-homeless residents, businesses, city agencies, and elected officials happier in the long run…For example, Philadelphia, PA recently greatly reduced the number of homeless persons asking for change in a downtown subway station by donating an abandoned section of the station to a service provider for use as a day shelter.”
Jerry L. Mills of Mills, Scanlon, Dye & Pittman, wrote in a Feb. 2, 2024 memorandum sent by email to Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee: “I carefully reviewed the case law cited in that letter and fully agree with the conclusions set out in the ACLU’s letter. I am convinced that had we not taken action in this matter, the City of Ridgeland would have incurred substantial liability and costs.”
The Jackson City Council voted to repeal city ordinances prohibiting panhandling in October 2020. The move came after pressure from the ACLU and at the suggestion of Deputy City Attorney James Anderson, who cited the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Reed v. Gilbert case).
With no panhandling ordinances in place, local police departments handle situations with panhandlers as best as they can.
Homeless individuals tend to congregate in business areas such as Fondren and downtown Jackson because they have more success at panhandling and there are restaurants where they may get a free meal or can dumpster dive for something to eat, Capitol Police Chief Bo Luckey said in an earlier Northside Sun story.
“They benefit more from hanging out in a business area than a residential area,” he said.
Capt. Jacquelyn Thomas of the Jackson Police Department’s Precinct 4 said last year that panhandling occurs across the city
“It’s a growing problem,” she said. “There’s very little the police department can do. The people panhandling have rights. We’re there to try to make sure everyone is safe, the people panhandling and citizens.”
Most law enforcement jurisdictions in the metro area have to deal with those who find it necessary to ask the public for money on the roadside, said Brian Myers, chief of the Ridgeland Police Department.
“The First Amendment of our Constitution protects peaceful requests for charity in a public place,” he said. “It is our job to uphold the Constitution for everyone. There is no law against panhandling but there is a law against impeding traffic. Those who find it necessary to solicit money in this fashion cannot do so in the street.”
Capt. Kevin Newman, administrative/support services commander for the city of Madison Police Department, said panhandling is not a common problem in Madison, but the department does receive occasional calls about it. Madison does not have a panhandling ordinance.
“If panhandling is occurring on private property (a business or business parking lot), it is the business owner/operator’s discretion to ask/instruct the person(s) to leave their premises,” he communicated via email. “The Police Department is often times called and asked to assist in these cases.
“If the persons are on public property, officers must take into consideration whether the individual(s) are impeding traffic or the normal flow of persons on sidewalks, walkways, or public entrances and exits. In cases where they are impeding traffic/pedestrian flow, they are asked to leave.
“In cases involving panhandling, as is in other incidents, officers are trained to attempt to identify if there are immediate medical or social service needs required by the person(s) involved and specific social service or charitable organizations can be recommended if needed.”
Hinds County Supervisor Robert Graham, who represents District One and serves as chair of the board, believes the numbers of panhandlers have grown in the last year, although he cannot explain why.
The Jackson Police Department does a good job when it comes to panhandlers, he said.
“The Jackson Police Department is doing a good job of running them off when they can run them off,” he said, “but they wait 20 minutes and come right back.”
Panhandlers create a traffic hazard, Graham said, and for that reason, he would like the board of supervisors to approve erecting “no panhandling” signs at busy intersections.
“The car behind you doesn’t know you’re going to stop and give someone money,” he said. “We’ve had several fender benders because of that.”
How much good would no panhandling signs do?
Graham admits he is not sure.
