In a letter sent today to 34 Colorado municipalities that make it a crime to “loiter for the purpose of begging,” the ACLU of Colorado demanded that municipal authorities stop enforcement and take immediate steps to repeal the “legally indefensible” ordinances.

“These outdated ordinances, which prohibit peaceful, nonintrusive requests for charity in any and every public place, must be taken off the books,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.  “As courts across the country, and here in Colorado, have recognized, a plea for help is a communication that is protected by the First Amendment.   An outstretched hand can convey human suffering, can remind passersby of the gap between rich and poor, and in some cases can highlight a lack of jobs and social services.”

Following the ACLU’s successful challenge to Grand Junction’s panhandling ordinance in federal court last year, several Colorado cities, including Denver, Colorado Springs, and Boulder, halted enforcement of laws that placed unconstitutional time and location restrictions on peaceful requests for charity.

The ordinances that prohibit “loitering for the purpose of begging” are far broader than the panhandling restrictions that were struck down in the Grand Junction decision.  Instead of attempting to limit the restrictions to certain times, to certain places, or to panhandling in a certain manner, they make it a crime to ask for charity anywhere in the municipality, at any time, and by any means, including by peacefully sitting and holding a sign.

The ACLU of Colorado examined court records from ten cities that have a “loitering for the purpose of begging” law and found that eight had engaged in some form of enforcement in the last two years, either through issuing citations, warnings, or move-on orders.

“Not only do these anti-begging ordinances violate the constitutional rights of people experiencing homelessness, but they are costly to enforce and serve to exacerbate problems associated with extreme poverty.  Harassing, ticketing, and/or arresting poor person for asking for help is inhumane, counterproductive, and – in many cases – illegal,” Silverstein and ACLU of Colorado Staff Attorney Rebecca T. Wallace wrote in the letter, which was delivered to all 34 cities by email this morning.

The municipalities identified as having “loitering for the purpose of begging” ordinances are Avon, Bennett, Brighton, Buena Vista, Carbondale, Cherry Hills Village, Cortez, Crested Butte, Cripple Creek, Del Norte, Dillon, Eaton, Englewood, Firestone, Garden City, Gilcrest, Green Mountain Falls, Johnstown, La Junta, Leadville, Lochbuie, Mead, Meeker, Milliken, Minturn, Nederland, Oak Creek, Platteville, Rifle, Rocky Ford, Salida, San Luis, Severance, and Timnath.

Colorado has seen a marked increase in recent years in enforcement of ordinances that effectively criminalize homelessness and poverty, including laws that make it a crime to sit, lie down, take shelter, or ask for charity in a public place.  The ACLU of Colorado has committed significant resources to challenging those laws through litigation, legal advocacy, and community mobilization.

more on this case

DENVER – The ACLU of Colorado filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today challenging a practice by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of withholding documents, without legal justification, that immigration lawyers require to advocate for clients that the agency deems to be “fugitives.”

“The Freedom of Information Act lists nine and only nine possible grounds an agency may rely on to withhold documents from disclosure,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.  “ICE has invented an additional reason for nondisclosure that cannot be found anywhere in the statute.  Accordingly, the agency’s refusal to disclose documents violates the law.”

Jennifer Smith, an immigration attorney, filed a FOIA request to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) for records related to the immigration status of one of her clients.  Immigration attorneys have limited discovery options and can generally gain access to a client’s immigration file only by filing a FOIA request.

USCIS identified a set of documents as responsive and referred the request to ICE, which refused to release the documents.   Instead of relying on one of the statutory exemptions, ICE asserted that Ms. Smith’s client was a “fugitive.” In such cases, the agency wrote, it was ICE’s “practice” to deny access to the FOIA process.

The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to promptly provide responsive documents to any person who requests them.  An agency may only deny a FOIA request based on one or more of nine stated exemptions in the law.  In this case, ICE did not provide Smith any legal justification based on the exemptions for denying access to her client’s immigration file.

The ACLU lawsuit seeks release of the files that were denied to Smith, as well as an end to ICE’s practice of denying records based on a justification that has no basis in law.

Smith is represented by Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado Staff Attorney Sara Neel and ACLU Cooperating Attorney Daniel J. Culhane of Daniel J. Culhane LLC.

more on this case

8/19/16
Statement of ACLU of Colorado Executive Director Nathan Woodliff-Stanley:
The ACLU of Colorado opposes the use of private contractors to perform police actions on the 16th Street Mall. While the Downtown Denver Partnership and city officials are concerned with “perceptions of safety” on the Mall, this approach carries the potential for real civil liberties violations, racial and economic profiling, and the undermining of reforms by the Denver Police Department intended to improve community trust in law enforcement.
The 16th Street Mall is a public place. The Downtown Denver Partnership has no more right to dictate who uses the Mall than do the people they clearly want to evict from it. Combined with recent revelations that the City made payment for anti-homeless sweeps to a private contractor out of the homeless services donation fund, it is clear that this administration is having difficulty distinguishing public versus private functions and protecting the rights of all members of the community equally.