MCLU Challenges Vagrancy Law

Contending that a state law prohibiting begging is unconstitutional, the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) is suing the City of Cambridge, its police department and the Middlesex District Attorney for upholding the statute.

The suit is a "test case" in Massachusetts, said Sarah Wunsch, an MCLU staff attorney, though there have been cases elsewhere in which similar vagrancy statutes have been struck down. While the Massachusetts vagrancy statute has been challenged before, said Wunsch, "This is the first direct challenge...to the 'begging' part."

The MCLU decided to challenge the state law when Craig Benefit, a homeless man, asked the group for assistance. Benefit has been arrested twice in the Harvard Square area for begging. After his first arrest in March, Wunsch said she got two or three calls from Harvard students who supported Benefit. One student said that the homeless man had repaired her bike, Wunsch said.

"I think he thought this was an issue of liberties and somehow he knew to come to us," said Wunsch.

The MCLU, too, believes that the law is "an issue of liberties." Wunsch has contacted city officials "a number of times" to recommend that police arrests be limited to those homeless people who threaten or harass passers-by, she said. The city manager's office told Wunsch that a memo would be sent to the police department, but "people go on being arrested," said Wunsch.

"Our position is that asking for help is speech, protected by the First Amendment," said Wunsch. "It can't be censored by the city," she said.

The begging statute is unconstitutional for two reasons, said Wunsch: It is a "content-based restriction on speech," and it is unequal treatment "based on who you are," she said. The police are arresting people who are poor and asking for help, while thecity customarily allows others to ask for help fortheir organizations, she said. "[Others] are notgetting harassed, nor do I think they should be,"Wunsch added.

The city recognizes that panhandling is a"definite problem," according to Karen E. Routt,Chief of Staff for Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72.But the fact remains that the law againstpanhandling exists, she said.

"The city is simply looking to enforce that,but not looking to single out panhandlers," shesaid.

"This is a hardship we have to deal with inother ways," said Routt. She noted Reeves' effortsto develop more job opportunities "so that some ofthe people who are currently panhandlers will nothave that need in the future."

Fourteen people have been arrested so far thisyear for panhandling, according to police records.

In a recent California decision, a similar lawwas struck down. The federal district court theremaintained that the law was a violation ofConstitutional protection of free speech.

The MCLU says it will have won the case if thecourt either strikes down the statute altogetheror decides that Cambridge's application of the lawto Benefit is unconstitutional.

If the MCLU does win, said Wunsch, the citywill pay attorney fees and damages to Benefit "andthe class that he represents," she said,explaining that others who have been arrested forpanhandling could be compensated.

The case is being handled probono for the MCLUby Jonathan Shapiro, an attorney at the Bostonfirm of Stern, Shapiro, Rosenfeld and Weissberg

The city recognizes that panhandling is a"definite problem," according to Karen E. Routt,Chief of Staff for Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72.But the fact remains that the law againstpanhandling exists, she said.

"The city is simply looking to enforce that,but not looking to single out panhandlers," shesaid.

"This is a hardship we have to deal with inother ways," said Routt. She noted Reeves' effortsto develop more job opportunities "so that some ofthe people who are currently panhandlers will nothave that need in the future."

Fourteen people have been arrested so far thisyear for panhandling, according to police records.

In a recent California decision, a similar lawwas struck down. The federal district court theremaintained that the law was a violation ofConstitutional protection of free speech.

The MCLU says it will have won the case if thecourt either strikes down the statute altogetheror decides that Cambridge's application of the lawto Benefit is unconstitutional.

If the MCLU does win, said Wunsch, the citywill pay attorney fees and damages to Benefit "andthe class that he represents," she said,explaining that others who have been arrested forpanhandling could be compensated.

The case is being handled probono for the MCLUby Jonathan Shapiro, an attorney at the Bostonfirm of Stern, Shapiro, Rosenfeld and Weissberg