08-07-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 12 Courts have consistently held that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to go freely onto private property for the purpose of any kind of sales or solicitations, irrespective of the owner or occupant’s wishes. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). The modified Green River approach, particularly when combined with some manner of city licensing, is probably the most effective means of controlling the problems associated with peddlers and solicitors. Despite concerns over the validity of the standard Green River ordinance, specifically when constitutional rights are involved, it appears more conclusive that an ordinance may prohibit peddling or soliciting when individuals post signs indicating they do not want to be disturbed by sales or solicitations. IV.Constitutional implications Many municipal regulations have been struck down for violating constitutional protections. Most often, challenges to city peddler, solicitor, or transient merchant regulations are based on alleged violations of: •Freedom of speech. •Equal protection. •Commerce Clause. •Freedom of religion. See Part IV-section A-2 Commercial speech & Part IV-section A-3 Non- commercial speech. Because concerns over these and other constitutional rights are often raised by local regulation of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, courts must balance the rights of these individuals against the government’s interests to protect the citizens’ rights to privacy, prevention of crimes, and avoidance of frauds. A court’s decision often hinges on whether the contested speech benefits commercial or noncommercial purposes. Attempts to regulate individuals going place-to-place, their primary purpose to exercise their constitutional rights, may be a losing battle. A.Freedom of speech U.S. Const. amend. I. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). The First Amendment provides that communications are generally protected from censorship by the government. Social, political, and religious door-to- door canvassing that does not involve the solicitation of money or the sale of goods (a commercial purpose) is among the most protected activities under the First Amendment. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976). State v. Century Camera, 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981). Commercial speech is also provided with limited protections; protections “commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values.” This allows for some governmental regulations that would not be permitted if noncommercial speech was involved.