Law Against Panhandling Struck Down : Courts: Federal judge rules 100-year-old state statute prohibiting begging in public infringes on constitutionally protected free speech.

A federal judge on Thursday struck down a century-old state law used widely to curb panhandling on city streets, finding that begging was a form of free speech protected by the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick rejected contentions by the city of San Francisco and state attorneys that the law should be upheld as a justifiable means of protecting the public from intimidation, threats and coercion.

“Begging gives the speaker an opportunity to spread his views and ideas on, among other things, the way our society treats its poor and disenfranchised,” the judge wrote.

Orrick said that individuals soliciting in public should be entitled to the same constitutional protections accorded charitable groups that seek help from the public. “An individual with AIDS should be allowed to solicit food for himself, just as an individual with AIDS should be able to band together to form a food bank to solicit food for its members,” he said.

The ruling came as an unexpected victory for civil liberties lawyers representing Celestus Blair, Jr., a onetime homeless beggar here, in a bid to overturn a law used in San Francisco, Los Angeles and other communities against aggressive begging.

Robert J. Keyes of San Francisco, cooperating attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, called the ruling “a great victory for Mr. Blair and everyone who cherishes liberty and cares for the needy.”

San Francisco Assistant City Atty. George A. Riley said, however, that the ruling would be appealed promptly to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. “This decision seriously erodes the effort to deal with aggressive and assaultive behavior on the streets,” he said.

While the ruling did not specifically bar enforcement of the law, Riley said the city of San Francisco immediately instructed its officers not to enforce it and expected other municipalities, such as Los Angeles, to do the same pending further review.

The case here arose in the wake of a widely publicized dispute in New York in which a federal judge last year struck down a transit authority law barring begging in the city subway system. That law later was overturned by a federal appellate court, which found that the essence of begging was to obtain money, not convey a message.

The case brought to court here sought to draw a significant distinction from the New York dispute. In New York, it was argued, the law barred solicitation in the subway system, which was held not to be a public forum. But in California, attorneys contended, the law barred begging on the sidewalk, which serves as a legally protected “public forum.”

At issue was a penal code provision that says anyone “who accosts other persons in a public place or any other place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms” is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Backed by lawyers for the ACLU, Blair brought suit against San Francisco city officials, asking the court to rule the law unconstitutional and seeking damages for violations of his civil rights.

Blair, now employed as a $36,000-a-year municipal bus driver, said he was improperly arrested five times in 1988 under the law while he was homeless, unemployed and peacefully seeking assistance from passersby on city streets. The charges were dropped in all five instances.

The constitutionality of the law was upheld by a state appeals court in 1976, but had not been reviewed by a federal court.

Los Angeles police have said they invoke the law periodically in response to complaints of beggars accosting passersby. At one point last year, police said they were arresting as many as 80 panhandlers a month in downtown Los Angeles. In San Francisco, about 100 arrests were made under the law last year.