DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. – A federal appeals court this week upheld a finding that portions of Daytona Beach’s panhandling ordinance violate the First Amendment. However, the judges also concluded that the lower court overreached by blocking the city’s entire law.
Adopted in 2019, the ordinance prohibited people from begging, demanding or asking for money in specified parts of the city, including requests made for charitable donations. Anyone found in violation could face up to 60 days in jail, a fine of as much as $500, or both.
The restrictions applied to locations such as sidewalks, medians, bus stops, ATMs, areas near schools and daycares, and the Daytona Beach Boardwalk. The ordinance also prohibited what it described as “aggressive” panhandling.
In 2024, a federal judge struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional and issued a permanent order preventing Daytona Beach from enforcing it.
This week, though, the appeals court determined that the four plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge only certain portions of the ordinance. As a result, the court said other parts of the law should not have been invalidated.
Among the provisions at issue were bans on:
Aggressive panhandling
Panhandling within 20 feet of an entrance or exit to commercially zoned property.
Panhandling within 20 feet of a bus or trolley stop
Panhandling within 150 feet of a signalized intersection on certain roads
Panhandling on the Daytona Beach Boardwalk
Approaching a vehicle to panhandle, solicit, beg or offer to perform a service
Panhandling after dark
The biggest finding was that rules that restrict “solicitation” must be content-neutral and regulated “evenhandedly.” The court pointed out that the Daytona Beach ordinance doesn’t regulate commercial solicitations.
“By restricting pleas for immediate donations but not commercial entreaties, Daytona Beach’s ordinance discriminates based on content,” the judges wrote.
The appeals court decided the lower court only had the right to block the provisions listed above. The court lifted the stay on the rest of the ordinance’s provisions.
[READ the full decision below]
