An email to a city councilman five years ago warned a crackdown on panhandling could end up costing Oklahoma City taxpayers a lot of money.<\/p>\n
Five years later, that is exactly what has happened. And the bill could be much higher.<\/p>\n
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Aug. 31 that Ordinance 25,777 violated the First Amendment.<\/p>\n
Attorneys who challenged the constitutionality of the 2015 ordinance now are entitled to their fees, which would be paid by taxpayers.<\/p>\n
In the Aug. 18, 2015, email, city attorney Kenneth Jordan warned the \"downside\" of adopting panhandling regulations that could be unconstitutional would be a federal lawsuit by civil rights attorneys such as ACLU Oklahoma.<\/p>\n
That is just what happened, when a team including the ACLU, a University of Oklahoma College of Law professor, and Legal Aid sued following passage in December 2015 of restrictions on \"standing, sitting or staying\" in traffic medians.<\/p>\n
Jordan advised in his email that the \"right to beg or seek alms in a public place is First Amendment activity.\"<\/p>\n
\"If such a lawsuit were filed and was decided against the city,\" he said, \"the city and its ad valorem taxpayers would be forced to pay the ACLU's attorney fees.\"<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Continued here: <\/p>\n
Email predicted taxpayers would pay price for panhandling crackdown, and they have - Oklahoman.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An email to a city councilman five years ago warned a crackdown on panhandling could end up costing Oklahoma City taxpayers a lot of money. Five years later, that is exactly what has happened. And the bill could be much higher. Continue reading