Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2020 09 30

Home Browse Search

CXtycf LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Louisville COMMUNICATION COLORADO • SINCE 1.878 SUBJECT: SOLICITATION AND OTHER ACTIVITIES IN STREET MEDIANS DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 PRESENTED BY: KATHLEEN KELLY, CITY ATTORNEY SUMMARY: In 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1759, which repealed and re-enacted Chapter 5.06 of the Louisville Municipal Code ("LMC") to permanently remove a total ban on door-to-door solicitation, but left in place the prohibition against solicitation when a "No Solicitation" or "No Trespassing" sign is posted as well the prohibition against solicitors knowingly making false or deceptive statements to obtain an invitation to visit private premises. It also carried forward the general prohibition against sales from or upon sidewalks, streets, parks and other public property without approval by the City Manager or her designee. Section 12.20.100 of the Code also addresses solicitation, making it unlawful for a person to solicit on or near a street or a highway, such as from a median. The Legal Committee last discussed regulation of medians and solicitation a year ago, in September 2019, in response to a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case of Evans v. Sandy City, 928 F.3d 1171 (101h Cir. 2019). The City of Sandy City had adopted an ordinance prohibiting standing or sitting on any unpaved median or any median of less than 36 inches for any period of time; the ordinance did not mention panhandling or solicitation. The Court analyzed the constitutionality of the ordinance assuming the medians are traditional public fora, which is consistent with prior court decisions in Colorado that streets are traditional public fora. The evidence before the court included: • The city had received complaints of several "close calls" of pedestrians who were almost struck by vehicles; • The city prosecutor viewed medians located within the city to identify "dangerous" ones, and determined 36-inch width was the threshold for safety; • There remained approximately 7,000 linear feet of medians in the city unaffected by the ordinance. The Court found that even though the ordinance had an incidental affect on some speakers, it was not content -based and was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest — safety — and there were ample alternative channels of communication available. In fact the plaintiff in the lawsuit had received two tickets for violation of the ordinance on a median where 10 feet away it was 36" wide and therefore would have been lawful for him to stand there. LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION