Fernandez v. St. Louis Cnty.
| Decision Date | 11 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-01638-SNLJ |
| Citation | 538 F.Supp.3d 888 |
| Parties | Robert FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Hugh A. Eastwood, Hugh A. Eastwood, Attorney at Law, W. Bevis Schock, Schock Law, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
Linda Levin, Robert C. Moore, Steven J. Capizzi, St. Louis County Counselors Office, Clayton, MO, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Robert Fernandez sues defendant St. Louis County, Missouri, for alleged violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Missouri state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Defendant has repeatedly cited and arrested plaintiff for violating its solicitation and vagrancy ordinances by begging for money at busy County intersections. Plaintiff challenges three of these ordinances and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. The parties agreed to submit this case for decision to the Court on briefs and stipulated facts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(1). Having considered the parties’ pleadings, trial briefs, exhibits, and stipulated facts, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. See id. at 52(a).
The parties stipulated to most of the relevant facts. Plaintiff describes himself as a poor, homeless, unemployed man who begs for money from motorists in St. Louis County to support himself and his companion. Since 2017, police have cited plaintiff 64 times and arrested him four times for his solicitation activities. Police have also given plaintiff warnings about his solicitation activity without citing or arresting him and told him to move along, which plaintiff has done. Plaintiff challenges three ordinances under which he has been cited and arrested: (1) the solicitor licensing requirements of Chapter 804, the "Peddlers and Solicitors Code"; (2) section 1209.090.1, which prohibits standing in the roadway for certain solicitation purposes; and (3) sections 716.080 and 716.090, which define and prohibit vagrancy.
Plaintiff challenges the provisions of St. Louis County Code Chapter 804 that require a person to obtain a license before soliciting property or financial assistance in public and that restrict solicitation at certain designated intersections. Defendant has cited plaintiff 31 times and arrested him four times for soliciting without a license and has held him pursuant to these arrests for a total of 28 hours and 26 minutes.1
Section 804.050 requires a "solicitor" to obtain a license before soliciting, reading: "It shall be unlawful for any solicitor to engage in such business in St. Louis County, without first having obtained a license therefor from the Division." St. Louis County Peddlers and Solicitors Code § 804.050. The chapter defines a "solicitor" as:
Id. § 804.030(4) (emphasis added).
To obtain a solicitor's license, applicants must pay a $13.00 license fee, complete notarized paperwork, attach photographs of themselves, and undergo a background check. Chapter 804 lists several reasons an application may be denied, including if the applicant lacks "good moral character and reputation." See St. Louis County Peddlers and Solicitors Code § 804.130(c). A solicitor's license expires after six months and cannot be renewed, requiring a person to repeat the process every six months. Chapter 804 does not set a timeline by which applications must be processed. In plaintiff's experience, defendant has typically taken between one to three weeks to process his applications.
In addition to the license requirement, section 804.165 limits soliciting at designated intersections to three days per year per person or organization. Section 804.165.1 reads: Id. § 804.165.1. Section 804.165.3 requires any person who wants to solicit at a Schedule I intersection to present a valid solicitor license and file an advance application to solicit on the requested dates. Id. § 804.165.3. This section also requires all individuals who solicit under its authority to "comply with all applicable County ordinances and traffic regulations." Id. § 804.165.4.
Schedule I intersections are high-volume traffic intersections with higher speed limits designed to increase the movement of traffic. Defendant claims section 804.165 serves to reduce the number of solicitors at busy intersections, which reduces the risk of accidents and promotes traffic safety. Plaintiff prefers to solicit at the northbound exit for Interstate 55 at Lindbergh Boulevard, a Schedule I intersection, because he says he makes the most money there. Plaintiff's financial needs require him to beg almost daily. He claims that he makes less money at other locations and that the suburban nature of St. Louis County necessitates begging at intersections where lots of vehicles pass.
Plaintiff has applied for solicitor's licenses three times. His first two applications were approved and have expired. The third was pending when the parties submitted this matter. As plaintiff's preferred place to beg is a Schedule I intersection, he also sought authorization to solicit at certain Schedule I intersections with one of his license applications. He received approval to solicit at his preferred intersection on three days in 2019, the maximum number of days allowed per person in one calendar year. Plaintiff admits he has solicited at Schedule I intersections on other days without authorization.
Plaintiff has not been convicted of any violations under these ordinances and thus has not been imprisoned or paid any fines. In May 2019, a St. Louis County Counselor entered a nolle prosequi on the citations then pending against plaintiff. Plaintiff continued to receive citations after he filed this lawsuit, with his last arrest occurring on August 22, 2019. In December 2019, a County municipal judge dismissed all citations then pending against plaintiff following plaintiff's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff claims he received notice of additional court dates for pending citations in July 2020, which caused him fear, and that these court dates were later cancelled, which put his mind more at ease. Plaintiff fears he will continue to be cited and arrested for soliciting.
Plaintiff has an old shoulder injury that pre-dated the events of this lawsuit. The parties stipulate that because of his handcuffing during an arrest on June 18, 2018, plaintiff's shoulder dislocated at the site of the old injury, requiring County police officers to take him to the hospital for treatment. Defendant's exhibits show defendant arrested plaintiff on June 15, 2018, and that, after being detained in a holding cell, plaintiff complained of shoulder and chest pain, was transported to the hospital for treatment, and was deemed fit for confinement. Plaintiff's exhibits include one set of medical records for a hospital visit on September 8, 2018, which is not on or around a date on which plaintiff was arrested. Those records indicate plaintiff dislocated his shoulder
by slipping and falling on the concrete approximately 30 minutes before arriving at the hospital.
Defendant submitted evidence of two accidents involving solicitors at Schedule I intersections in the past three years. In one, a child soliciting for a youth team stepped off a median, stumbled, and struck a vehicle's side mirror. In the other, a driver rear ended another vehicle while trying to get money out to give to a solicitor by the exit lane.
A County police officer claims that vehicles on the exit ramp have moved over when plaintiff walked towards them and that his precinct receives three to four phone call complaints each day about plaintiff soliciting at I-55 and Lindbergh. Defendant's Exhibit A contains audio recordings of six such calls between August and November 2019. These complaints include that plaintiff was "blocking up traffic, taking people's money"; that he is "always there" and "goes in and out of traffic when the light's red"; that the same "Mexican or black, whatever he is" beggar was there again; that it is "disturbing to live in St. Louis County ... and have beggars at the damn intersection"; and that "it's bad enough I can't even take my kids, you know, to a baseball game in the city ... because of all the homeless beggars ... I'll be damned if they're going to start invading St. Louis County." Def.’s Ex. A [Doc. #59-1].
Plaintiff challenges section 1209.090.1 of the St. Louis County Code, which reads: "No person shall stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride, employment, charitable contribution or business from the occupant of any vehicle." St. Louis County Traffic Code § 1209.090.1. Defendant has cited plaintiff 14 times under this section.
Plaintiff begs by carrying a sign stating he is homeless and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Xanthopoulos v. Internal Revenue Serv.
-
Cherry v. Booker
...(cleaned up)). Such damages may include “out-of-pocket loss, monetary harm, harm to reputation, humiliation, mental anguish, and suffering.” Id. (citing Memphis Comm. Sch. Dist., U.S. at 307). Mr. Cherry has alleged that he seeks to recover damages for his “pain and suffering,” a viable req......
-
Gerling v. Waite
... ... Armontrout , 860 F.2d 1456, 1459 & n.4 (8th Cir ... 1988); Fernandez v. St. Louis Cty., Missouri , 538 ... F.Supp.3d 888, 905 (E.D. Mo. 2021). “When determining ... ...
-
Gerling v. Waite
...City of Bel-Nor, Missouri, No. 4:18-CV-003 RLW, 2021 WL 2255003, at *5-6 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2021) (citing cases). For example, in Fernandez, 538 F.Supp.3d at 906, the Court without opposition, hourly rates of $575 and $475 per hour for experienced civil rights attorneys. In M.B. v. Tidball, ......
-
Show-Me the Money: Outdated Solicitation Laws Expose Municipalities to Liability.
...solicitation, this Note specifically focuses on the effects of Reed on Missouri municipalities. (15) Fernandez v. St. Louis Cnty., 538 F. Supp. 3d 888, 893 (E.D. Mo. (16) Tony Messenger, Messenger: Judge's Ruling Spotlights Homelessness in St. Louis County, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (May 13, ......