logo
Three residents sue Miami over anti-panhandling law, argue it's unconstitutional

Three residents sue Miami over anti-panhandling law, argue it's unconstitutional

Miami Herald28-05-2025

In 2023 and 2024, Miami police officers made nearly 400 arrests of people 'aggressively' panhandling in city limits, according to a new lawsuit. The suit, which hopes to overturn the law, argues that the city's ordinance violates the First Amendment and does not apply to other forms of speech, like a political candidate asking for support or a church member proselytizing.
The city of Miami enacted the ordinance prohibiting 'aggressive' or 'obstructive' panhandling in 2000, according to the lawsuit. Violators can be fined $100 or jailed for up to 30 days for a first offense, or fined $200 and jailed up to 60 days for subsequent offenses.
The Florida Justice Institute, a coalition of civil-rights attorneys, filed its lawsuit against the city last week, arguing that the ordinance infringes on residents' constitutional rights, including the First Amendment right to free speech, and targets marginalized groups such as the homeless.
'As far as we can tell, it's only been enforced against poor and presumptively homeless people who've been asking for money,' said Dante P. Trevisani, an attorney with the institute. The lawsuit adds that the ordinance's definition of 'aggressive' is vague and therefore unconstitutional.
The city has not yet responded to the lawsuit in court, and a city spokesperson did not provide a response to the allegations when contacted by the Miami Herald.
The plaintiffs in the case, Patrick Mazzone, Albert Steve Sandlin and Andrew Biess, have all been arrested for violating the ordinance. Several arrest reports cited them as 'disrupting the flow of traffic' by panhandling. The three men are all longtime Miami residents who have experienced homelessness and rely on donations to make a living, according to the complaint.
The city's 'punitive measures … perpetuate a cycle where homeless persons accrue fines they cannot pay, often leading to arrest and further barriers to stable employment and housing,' Florida Justice Institute attorneys argue in court documents.
Each of the plaintiffs said they wish to continue to request donations but have 'been continually harassed and threatened by the police with arrest' and fear being arrested again under the ordinance.
The legality of panhandling has been debated heavily in recent years. Several lawsuits have been filed across the country regarding similar laws, including in New Mexico, Alabama and New Hampshire. Lawsuits have also been filed across Florida in places like Seminole County, Daytona Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Jacksonville.
While courts have allowed cities to put certain regulations on panhandling, they have also blocked laws that inhibit the right to free speech, according to the nonpartisan Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.
Previous cases
This is not the first time the city of Miami has been sued by the Florida Justice Institute. In December 2023, the organization sued the city over another panhandling ordinance that applied to the downtown core — an ordinance that had been declared unconstitutional in 2017, according to a press release from the institute. The city ultimately repealed the ordinance.
Willie White, who was 65 at the time of the 2023 lawsuit, served as the plaintiff in that case. He had been arrested twice for panhandling in the span of a month. The city eventually settled with White for $45,000.
In a different case, four plaintiffs experiencing homelessness sued the city in 2022 after city workers trashed their personal belongings, which included government identification, medication, family photos and an urn with a parent's ashes, the Herald previously reported.
The city eventually paid a $300,000 settlement for that case in 2024.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

As 75 Democrats Vote to Praise ICE, Ilhan Omar Wants to Hold Police Accountable for Protest Abuses
As 75 Democrats Vote to Praise ICE, Ilhan Omar Wants to Hold Police Accountable for Protest Abuses

The Intercept

time41 minutes ago

  • The Intercept

As 75 Democrats Vote to Praise ICE, Ilhan Omar Wants to Hold Police Accountable for Protest Abuses

Seventy-five House Democrats voted on Monday in support of a resolution that praised President Donald Trump's deportation regime. The vote came as Trump deployed more than 1,700 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles to crush protests against increased U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and mass arrests. Sponsored by Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., a pro-Israel Republican, the bulk of the resolution was dedicated to condemning the attack last month in Boulder, Colorado, against pro-Israel demonstrators calling for the release of hostages in Israel. Tucked into the text was a line praising ICE, expressing 'gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.' While some Democrats are busy joining Republican colleagues to praise ICE, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is seeking to pass a law that holds police accountable for violence against protesters. Her bill, introduced in late May, would apply penalties to law enforcement for using force in response to a demonstration. 'Now, more than ever, it's important that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans' right to free speech and peaceful protest,' Omar said. 'That's why I introduced legislation to make law enforcement violence against protesters a federal crime.' The military response to the protests is not just about immigration, said Omar, but represents another step in Trump's efforts to crush dissent. 'In my district and across the country, we're seeing the Trump Administration use militarized force to silence, intimidate, and brutalize, not just protestors for exercising their First Amendment right, but also members of the press,' Omar said in a statement to The Intercept. 'This appears to be part of a broader more sinister and deeply un-American agenda to surveil and criminalize individuals for their political views.' While the bill praising ICE got 75 votes from Democrats and 205 Republicans, with seven co-sponsors, Omar's bill has only garnered three co-sponsors. Another resolution Omar introduced late last month that condemns police brutality, especially in response to protests, has no cosponsors. Of the handful of bills related to protests introduced in Congress this session, the vast majority are aimed at increasing penalties for protesters; restricting people convicted of federal or state crimes in relation to protests from receiving federal student aid; and designating some forms of protest as domestic terrorism. Few bills, on the other hand, seek to introduce new protections. There are currently only two Democratic bills this session related to protecting protesters — both have been introduced by Omar. Read our complete coverage Even when bills seek to shore up protesters' rights, some are aimed at defending Trump supporters, not protesters in general. One from a far-right member of Congress seeks to bar detention for nonviolent political protesters in the name of a man who participated in the January 6 attacks on the Capitol and, following his conviction, died by suicide in custody. Omar is one of several progressive members of Congress who denounced Trump's use of state force to quash dissent and affirmed the rights of protesters. On Monday, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, called Trump's actions a distraction and described them as illegal and authoritarian. 'Trump's threats have nothing to do with keeping people safe — it's about political theater. He's scapegoating immigrants to distract from the GOP's real agenda: ripping health care away from millions to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-rich,' Casar said in a statement. 'We stand with Angelenos, and we stand with immigrant families everywhere. The President must return command of the National Guard to Governor Newsom.' Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said the arrival of the military in Los Angeles was 'evidence of our country's descent into fascism.' 'It's an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation that will only destabilize our communities,' Tlaib wrote. 'I stand with those defending our immigrant neighbors and our fundamental rights.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called on protesters to remain nonviolent. 'Dr. King defeated racist government officials & ended segregation through disciplined non-violent resistance,' Sanders tweeted. 'Defeating Trumpism, oligarchy & authoritarianism requires that same level of discipline. Violent protests are counterproductive and play right into Trump's playbook.' Comments like Sanders's that blame protesters for violence justify Trump's response, said California attorney Thomas Harvey, who has worked with student protesters demonstrating against Israel's war on Gaza. Trump has 'falsely characterized resistance to these ICE abductions as insurrection and rebellion to justify federalizing the National Guard in CA and authorized Secretary of Defense Pete Hesgeth to use the military on U.S. soil anywhere he decides,' Harvey said. 'To make matters worse, the armchair quarterbacks in the Democratic Party and punditry, most of whom have never organized a protest or dealt with the kind of state violence we're seeing today, dare to admonish protesters for engaging in what they call violence.' Sanders's comments were 'incorrect and completely ahistorical,' Harvey added. 'King himself changed his views on violence, especially riots, as the Civil Rights Movement went on and the U.S. government resisted meaningful change. But any serious person knows that civil rights protesters fought the police in the streets in the 1960s, just as anti-ICE kidnapping protesters are willing to do today,' he said. People protesting in Los Angeles responded to an already violent situation, said Ricci Sergienko, an attorney and organizer in Los Angeles. 'Is our current situation 'peace'? Why would anyone be shocked at this response by the people?' 'Our current situation is a complete provocation by the state — tearing families apart and throwing people into concentration camps is violence,' Sergienko said. 'They are kidnapping people and locking them in the LA federal detention center basement without food or water. This, on top of the violence already faced against every day Angelenos. From seven unhoused people dying on the streets every day to rent and evictions to continuous police harassment. How do you expect people to act? Is our current situation 'peace'? Why would anyone be shocked at this response by the people?' The protests in Los Angeles should come as no surprise given its history of mass action, Sergienko said. Riots broke out in 1992 after police brutally beat Rodney King. In 1965, the Watts Rebellion came in response to widespread racist police abuse. Protests in 2020 against police brutality and in 2024 against Israel's genocide in Gaza are part of that same thread, he said. 'There is a long history of this kind of action in Los Angeles,' he said. 'Politicians don't dictate how people in this city are going to respond.'

Methodists oppose Indiana's attacks on higher education
Methodists oppose Indiana's attacks on higher education

Indianapolis Star

timean hour ago

  • Indianapolis Star

Methodists oppose Indiana's attacks on higher education

Gov. Mike Braun, Attorney General Todd Rokita and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith are engaging in a terrible behavior directed toward Indiana's institutions of higher education. Braun, for his part, acted autocratically to change Indiana University's Board of Trustees structure and supports the closure of decades-long programs to address systemic racism. Meanwhile, Rokita has threatened Butler, DePauw and Notre Dame over support for diversity, equity and inclusion. Last weekend, Indiana United Methodists took a bold stance against their behavior and in support of inclusion and justice. 'We aspire to extend our support for institutions of higher education facing governmental threats. Attacks from state officials have been attacks on institutions of higher education, a resolution passed by the Indiana United Methodists said. 'It's important that we stand with all the institutions of higher education… [and] we will continue to struggle against the systemic racism that pervades our nation and state.' While university administrators at state institutions remain silent, or cower in fear, failing to stand for academic freedom, inclusion and the common good, at least the United Methodists have taken a stand. As longtime allies of higher education, they have provided a word of hope for the future rather than seeking a return to the bigotries of the past. The universities under attack have deep and historic ties to the faith traditions of the Disciples of Christ, the United Methodist Church and Catholic churches. In attacking these universities, Rokita has ignored the First Amendment, which sets out the separation of church and state. In Indiana nearly 700 congregations and well over 70,000 members are counted as United Methodists. The UMC vote condemning threats to our universities may not have made the newspapers, but our state politicians should know Hoosiers are soundly rejecting their bullying.

Critics Expose The Massive Constitutional Flaw In Donald Trump's Latest Threat
Critics Expose The Massive Constitutional Flaw In Donald Trump's Latest Threat

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Critics Expose The Massive Constitutional Flaw In Donald Trump's Latest Threat

Donald Trump's threat to use 'very heavy force' on anyone who dares to protest his administration during the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary celebrations in Washington, D.C., on Saturday — which coincides with the president's 79th birthday — drew fierce blowback on social media. 'If there's any protester wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump told reporters on Tuesday. 'For those people, that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' he reiterated. Trump claimed he hadn't 'even heard about a protest' being planned on the day. But he deployed his usual rhetoric against his critics, claiming they are just 'people who hate our country.' And he added again, 'They will be met with very heavy force.' Critics reminded Trump of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' Former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci, who is now a vocal critic of his onetime boss, slammed Trump for 'threatening state sponsored violence on citizens exercising their first amendment right' and called Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to 'grow a backbone' and speak out to 'reject fascism.' Others agreed: Surprise Departure Deals Blow To Slim GOP House Majority Rachel Maddow Reveals Sure Sign Trump Is 'Absolutely Panicking' Right Now Trump Reveals What's Next For That Tesla He Bought From Elon Musk

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store