SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Friday barred a Los Angeles anti-panhandling ordinance pending the outcome of a federal trial on whether the law violates beggars' free-speech rights.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholds a Los Angeles federal district court's injunction on the law.
The ordinance, suspended by a Los Angeles federal court order since it was passed in 1997, would outlaw ''aggressive'' panhandling, defined as asking for money in a way that would make a reasonable person fearful, blocking the person's path, using abusive language or approaching someone who has already said no.
It would also forbid begging near automated teller machines. Another provision would prohibit soliciting for money in a bus or train, in or near bus stops or transit stations, or in restaurants, if someone in charge of any of those places objected.
''Whether the ordinance in certain aspects and applications infringes upon the right to free speech raises ... serious questions,'' a three-judge panel of the circuit wrote in an unusually brief opinion.
The injunction will continue, the court wrote, until the case brought by the Los Angeles Alliance for Survival finishes a federal trial or settles.
A growing number of other cities have anti-panhandling ordinances, with varying provisions. Arguments supporting Los Angeles in the circuit court case were filed by 77 city governments.
Peter Eliasberg, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who handled the case for the alliance, predicted the ordinance won't pass constitutional muster.
''The handwriting is on the wall,'' he said.
In the same case, the circuit court asked the California Supreme Court for its opinion, and in May, the high court ruled that a city that restricts the conduct of people who ask for money and the places they can approach others is treating all solicitors equally regardless of viewpoint and is not censoring free expression. Such laws are not ''constitutionally suspect,'' Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote.
With that decision and the circuit court's decision Friday, it is now up to the lower federal court in Los Angeles to determine whether the restrictions are reasonable. Had the Supreme Court said the ordinance was censorship, it would have been overturned.
Other laws regulating expression, not related to panhandling, have been upheld if they reasonably limit the time, place or manner of expression and leave open adequate alternative means of expression. An example are widely used municipal ordinances banning loud and noisy trucks in residential areas after certain hours.
By contrast, laws that regulate the content of speech are almost always overturned. Two Supreme Court justices said the Los Angeles ordinance was such a law.
''A speaker can approach someone using an ATM and ask for the time, but cannot ask for a quarter,'' said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, joined in dissent by Justice Stanley Mosk.
However, George wrote that the government can regulate solicitation of funds without engaging in ''favoritism among different viewpoints.''
Assistant City Attorney Deborah Sanchez could not be reached for immediate comment. But the city has maintained that the ordinance protects members of the public from unwarranted fear and harassment.
The case is Los Angeles Alliance for Survival vs. City of Los Angeles, 97-56742.
