Smith v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 98-4973
Citation | 177 F.3d 954 |
Decision Date | 02 June 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-4973,98-4973 |
Parties | James Dale SMITH, personally and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Bruce S. Rogow, Beverly A. Pohl, American Civil Liberties Union, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Lisa N. Hodapp, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before COX and HULL, Circuit Judges, and COHILL *, Senior District Judge.
A Plaintiff-Appellant class of homeless people appeals the district court's decision granting summary judgment for the City of Fort Lauderdale on the class's First Amendment challenge to a City regulation proscribing begging on a certain five-mile strip of beach and two attendant sidewalks. We hold the challenged restrictions on speech are narrowly tailored to serve the City's legitimate interests and thus affirm.
The controversy in this case began when the City of Fort Lauderdale enacted Rules and Park Regulations for City Parks and Beaches, intended "to provide citizens with a safe environment in which recreational opportunity can be maximized." Pursuant to this purpose, the City included in its regulations Rule 7.5, which prescribes regulations "to eliminate nuisance activity on the beach and provide patrons with a pleasant environment in which to recreate." Rule 7.5(c) states, "Soliciting, begging or panhandling is prohibited." 1
Plaintiffs challenge Rule 7.5(c)'s application to a five-mile strip of beach, a new, one-and-a-half-mile promenade sidewalk between that beach and Highway A1A, and the commercial-area sidewalk on the opposite side of Highway A1A-hereinafter collectively called the "Fort Lauderdale Beach area." The parties stipulate as follows:
The Fort Lauderdale Beach area is an essential part of the Fort Lauderdale tourism experience. Tourism is one of Florida's most important economic industries, and Fort Lauderdale is the premiere tourist location of Broward County. The Beach area is Fort Lauderdale's number one tourist attraction. Approximately four million tourists, many of whom are from foreign countries, visit the Fort Lauderdale area, and most of them at one time or another visit the Fort Lauderdale Beach area. City attendance records reflect that almost three million people visit the beach annually (August, 1993-July, 1994 estimated figures).
The improvement of the Beach area was a high priority in the City's plan to expand the economic base of the community by attracting new investment. Creating an attractive infrastructure was designed to encourage quality development in the Beach area.
As an initial matter, we note that Rule 7.5(c)'s limitations on begging in the Fort Lauderdale Beach area restrict speech in a public forum. Like other charitable solicitation, begging is speech entitled to First Amendment protection. 2 See Loper v. New York City Police Dept., 999 F.2d 699, 704 (2d Cir.1993) ( ); see also Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) ( ).
Additionally, this Court's precedent conclusively establishes that the Fort Lauderdale Beach area covered by Rule 7.5(c)-consisting of beach and sidewalk spaces-is a public forum. See One World Family Now v. City of Miami Beach, 175 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.1999) ( ); International Caucus of Labor Committees v. City of Montgomery, 111 F.3d 1548, 1550 (11th Cir.1997) ( ); Naturist Society, Inc. v. Fillyaw, 958 F.2d 1515, 1521-23 (11th Cir.1992) ( ).
Nonetheless, Rule 7.5(c)'s restrictions on begging in the Fort Lauderdale Beach area 3 survive Plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge. Even in a public forum, the government may "enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication." Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983); see also One World Family Now, 175 F.3d at 1287. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Rule 7.5(c) is content-neutral and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. Plaintiffs also expressly concede that the City's interest in providing a safe, pleasant environment and eliminating nuisance activity on the beach is "a significant government interest." Plaintiffs argue only that Rule 7.5(c)'s begging restrictions are not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. We disagree.
Rule 7.5(c)'s restrictions on begging in the Fort Lauderdale Beach area are narrowly tailored to serve the City's interest in providing a safe, pleasant environment and eliminating nuisance activity on the beach. The City has made the discretionary determination that begging in this designated, limited beach area adversely impacts tourism. Without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leydon v. Greenwich
...in the district court's conclusion that Canaveral National Seashore in Florida was not traditional public forum); Smith v. Fort Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[Eleventh Circuit] precedent conclusively establishes that the Fort Lauderdale Beach area ... consisting of beach ......
-
McDonald v. City of Pompano Beach
...to serve a significant government interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication." Smith v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 1999) ; see also Mansky , 138 S. Ct. at 1885 ("In a traditional public forum—parks, streets, sidewalks, and the like—t......
-
City of Lakewood v. Willis
...appeals in the form of begging or panhandling, Gresham v. Peterson , 225 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir.2000) ; Smith v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir.1999) ; Loper v. N.Y. City Police Dep't , 999 F.2d 699, 704 (2d Cir.1993). As protected speech, begging may be subject to re......
-
Pindak v. Dart
...Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 444 U.S. 620, 628–32, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) ); Smith v. Fort Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir.1999) ("[L]ike other charitable solicitation, begging is speech entitled to First Amendment protection."); Loper v. New York......
-
The First Amendment's purpose.
...Cal. 1879) (No. 6,546). (53.) Id. at 254. (54.) Id. (55.) Id. at 255. (56.) Id. at 254. (57.) Id. at 255. (58.) Id. at 255-56. (59.) 177 F.3d 954 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 402 (60.) Id. at 955. (61.) "Whether with or without words, the object of begging and panhandling is the tr......
-
A reply to Posner.
...sub nom., Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991). (4.) POSNER, supra note 2, at 67. (5.) Smith v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954, 956-57 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 966 (6.) This is the same opinion cited above, which suggests that otherwise protected speech become......