Panhandlers, Officials Expect Federal Court Ruling to Have Little Effect : Laws: A judge struck down a statute prohibiting begging in public. But police and street people say it was rarely enforced.

Quinton Thorton, a jangling soda cup in hand, was begging for spare change outside the Los Angeles County Courthouse on Thursday when he was told that a federal judge had ruled this week that a century-old state law used to curb panhandling was unconstitutional.

That’s cool, Thorton said, but no big deal. Los Angeles cops don’t bother him, the Union Rescue Mission resident said, “as long as you ain’t bothering anybody.”

His bigger concern, he added, was with the Dodgers. If they win the World Series, there’ll be a celebration downtown. “My best day ever before was Laker (championship) day--I made $42,” said the six-year panhandler.

So it went in Los Angeles in the wake of the federal ruling in San Francisco on Wednesday that found begging a form of free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.

With an average of less than one case filed per day in a city of 3.4 million, Los Angeles street people and city officials alike predicted that the court decision is unlikely to have a dramatic impact on prosecutions.

“Looking at how many homeless there are and looking at 330 cases filed a year, you can draw your own conclusions,” said Deputy City Atty. Maureen Siegel, acting chief of the criminal division. “And as a practical matter, there are a lot of different vehicles the police can use to address the problem of very aggressive panhandling . . . obstructing pedestrian traffic or battery.”

At the same time, advocates of the homeless across the state hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick as an important symbolic message about civil liberties and the plight of the homeless.

“The Constitution requires that people’s speech be protected, especially when it is speech to communicate the most basic need a person has--asking for money to survive,” said Robin Toma, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.

San Francisco city attorneys, who had argued that the state statute should be upheld as a justifiable means of protecting the public from intimidation, say they will appeal Orrick’s ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the meantime, San Francisco police have been instructed to stop enforcing the law, which says that 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” can be charged with a misdemeanor.

Officials in the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, while emphasizing that the statute is infrequently used as a basis for prosecution, said they will analyze the federal decision before deciding whether to ask police to refrain from issuing citations.

Elsewhere in Southern California, reactions were mixed.

In Beverly Hills, police said the ruling could take away an “important tool” needed to control unruly panhandlers.

Lt. Jack Thorpe said police have made arrests every day in the last week, mainly of “regulars” who frequent Rodeo Drive and city parks.

“I don’t think abusing other people’s rights is free speech,” Thorpe said. “People have a right to privacy and to be left alone.”

In Santa Monica, referred to as the “home of the homeless” on one national radio program, City Atty. Robert M. Myers pointed out that the ruling backed up his policy against prosecuting non-aggressive panhandlers.

“If a politician can come up to you on the street and ask for $10 in a campaign contribution, can’t a homeless person stand by the wayside and ask for money in a similar polite manner?” he asked.

In Oxnard, Police Chief Robert Owens said the decision was irrelevant.

“Panhandlers are a cosmetic stain in our city,” he said. “But given our budgetary constraints, we seldom arrest people for panhandling unless there is a witness willing to testify that he’s been harassed.”

San Diego officials also said they rarely enforce the statute except in response to complaints. This year, 133 citations have been issued.

Support for the ruling was not universal among social service agencies.

One dissenting voice was Susan Dempsay, director of a Santa Monica day-care center for the mentally ill, who said that panhandlers are better off being referred to social service agencies.

Giving money to beggars is the “easy way out,” said Dempsay, who runs Step Up on Second. “I’d like to strangle the ACLU. They are killing homeless mentally ill people by giving them their rights.”

Mike Neely, director of the Homeless Outreach Program on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, said that “as a practical matter, the police aren’t out here picking up panhandlers. However, the situation always remains over your head. At any given moment, they may decide to enforce it.”

Scott, a 36-year-old panhandler outside the Los Angeles County Courthouse, was a perfect example.

Asked about the judge’s ruling, Scott, who asked that his last name not be used, pulled a misdemeanor citation from a plastic pouch in the pocket of his sweat pants.

“The security guard in the downtown mall was having a bad day,” said Scott, who has lived at the Union Rescue Mission since losing his job as a stock clerk several months ago. “Usually, if you’re just cool about panhandling, the cops don’t care.”

Times staff writers Bernice Hirabayashi and Nancy Hill-Holtzman in Santa Monica, Santiago O’Donnell in Ventura and Barry M. Horstman in San Diego contributed to this story.