Ruling on temporary restraining order expected soon

No final decision was reached yesterday at the conclusion of a hearing held in U.S. District Court to determine whether a Cranston ordinance – which prohibits solicitation and distribution of materials between pedestrians in a roadway and occupants of cars – would continue to be enforced or not while plaintiffs and the city, now locked in a lawsuit over the ordinance, prepare for the next step of litigation.

William Smith, Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode, declared on Tuesday afternoon that he would take a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the ordinance, which was approved by a 5-4 City Council vote in February, under advisement, but did not rule in favor or against the motion.

Lynette Labinger, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the language of the ordinance was “content-based,” and that it specifically targeted one niche type of speech that is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. She argued that Cranston already has other laws on the books that address unsafe behaviors on the road, and that the ordinance in question is simply an attempt to restrict panhandling in the city.

Further, Labinger argued that the city has presented no evidence that public safety is at risk by not maintaining the ordinance, and that preliminary research conducted by the plaintiffs has shown no increase in traffic collisions at intersections due to these types of transactions in the road, as is argued by the city in its justification of the ordinance.

Marc DeSisto, representing the City of Cranston, argued that the city does not have the burden of proving the public safety risks at this preliminary juncture, and that the language in the ordinance is “content-neutral,” meaning it applies to a full range of behaviors now deemed illegal – such as firefighters walking into the road with a boot to collect donations – and so it is not discriminatory.

The motion to temporarily restrain the enforcement of the ordinance was put forth by plaintiffs representing the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project and individuals who agree that the ordinance inordinately and discriminately affects homeless people who solicit donations from commuters.

If Smith rules in favor of the TRO, then the next step – a preliminary injunction hearing to ascertain evidence on both sides – would be scheduled at some point in the future. If the TRO is denied, Labinger asked that the preliminary injunction be scheduled as quickly as possible, as she argued that the ordinance is harming people every day that it remains enforced.