- Posted August 29, 2012
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Judge rules panhandling law violates Constitution

GRAND RAPIDS (AP) -- A state law banning panhandling in public places violates First Amendment protections for free speech and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, a federal judge in Michigan has ruled.
The opinion in a civil suit brought by two Grand Rapids men arrested in 2011 for begging was issued last Friday by U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker.
James Speet and Ernest Sims were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Speet was arrested for holding up signs seeking "work or help." Sims pleaded guilty to panhandling after asking for spare change.
Speet is homeless. Both men receive food stamps, and Sims also receives $260 per month in state disability insurance.
Grand Rapids enforced the panhandling ban 399 times between Jan. 1, 2008, and May 24, 2011, the ACLU said.
That will change with last Friday's opinion.
"Pending future developments in this case, Grand Rapids police will not be enforcing this state law," said Catherine Mish, Grand Rapids' city attorney.
It's also too early to tell whether an appeal will be filed, she added.
"We would have to analyze the case, discuss it with the city commission and the (state) attorney general's office," Mish said. "The AG's office really is the main moving force in the defense in the case because it's a state law. The city of Grand Rapids, we do not have an ordinance on the books in terms of beggars and panhandlers."
Published: Wed, Aug 29, 2012
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- Oscar vs. Jeff: Trial lawyers and appellate counsel do different jobs, and it may show in their writing
- ‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial
- ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech
- After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases
- ‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges
- Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone