Roulette v. City of Seattle
850 F.Supp. 1442, 1994 WL 174243, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5798 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance prohibiting sitting or lying on sidewalks in commercial areas is a constitutional regulation of conduct that does not infringe on fundamental rights if it is rationally related to legitimate government interests. An ordinance prohibiting "aggressive begging" is also constitutional if it is narrowly construed to apply only to unprotected speech, such as threats that would make a reasonable person fearful of harm.
Facts:
- The City of Seattle enacted an ordinance (SMC §§ 15.48.040-.050) prohibiting sitting or lying on public sidewalks in downtown and neighborhood commercial areas between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m.
- The stated purposes of the sidewalk ordinance were to ensure pedestrian safety and to protect the economic health of the city's commercial areas.
- The ordinance contained exceptions for medical emergencies, wheelchairs, permitted public events, public benches, and designated bus stops.
- Enforcement of the sidewalk ordinance required a police officer to first notify a person that they were in violation, providing an opportunity to comply before a citation could be issued.
- The City also amended an ordinance (SMC § 12A.12.015) to prohibit "aggressive begging," defined as begging with the intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods.
- The aggressive begging ordinance defined "intimidate" as conduct that would make a reasonable person fearful or feel compelled.
- A diverse coalition of plaintiffs, including homeless individuals, advocates, a voter registrar, and a street musician, wished to engage in activities such as resting, soliciting, or performing, which involved sitting on sidewalks in the restricted areas.
Procedural Posture:
- A coalition of plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Seattle in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging the constitutionality of two city ordinances.
- The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that both ordinances were unconstitutional.
- The City of Seattle filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to find both ordinances constitutionally valid.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do municipal ordinances that (1) prohibit sitting or lying on public sidewalks in commercial areas during specified hours and (2) prohibit "aggressive begging" violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process, free speech, equal protection, and the right to travel?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Rothstein
No. The ordinances, with a limiting judicial construction for the begging ordinance, do not violate the U.S. Constitution. The sidewalk ordinance is a constitutional regulation of conduct, not speech. It survives a vagueness challenge because it clearly defines the proscribed conduct, and the police notification requirement limits, rather than expands, police discretion. The ordinance does not violate substantive due process or equal protection because it is rationally related to the legitimate government interests of pedestrian safety and economic vitality, and it is facially neutral, targeting conduct rather than a specific class of people. It does not infringe on the right to travel, as it is limited in time and place, leaving ample alternative public spaces available. The aggressive begging ordinance is potentially overbroad, but the court applies a limiting construction to save it, interpreting it to prohibit only unprotected speech, specifically threats that would make a reasonable person fearful of harm to their person or property. However, the ordinance's separate section listing specific circumstances (e.g., touching, persisting) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and is therefore severed and struck down.
Analysis:
This decision provides a framework for upholding the constitutionality of facially neutral "quality of life" ordinances that regulate conduct in public spaces. It affirms that cities have significant latitude to regulate public sidewalks for safety and commerce under the rational basis test, so long as the laws do not target a suspect class or burden a fundamental right. The opinion demonstrates the judicial power of applying a limiting construction to narrow a potentially overbroad statute to its constitutional applications, thereby saving it from being struck down entirely. The ruling distinguishes between regulating pure conduct (sitting) and expressive conduct, establishing that not all public activities by a particular group are inherently expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.
