An Indianapolis ordinance that limits street begging and bans “aggressive panhandling” does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appeals court panel has ruled.

In June 1999, the city amended its panhandling ordinance to prohibit nighttime panhandling, "aggressive panhandling" and panhandling in certain locations, such as near ATMs.

The ordinance defines "aggressive panhandling" as "touching the solicited person without the solicited person's consent, using profane language while soliciting someone and blocking the path of a person being solicited."

Jimmy Gresham, an Indianapolis homeless person who lives on Social Security disability benefits and whatever monies he can solicit from panhandling, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds. He alleged it infringed on his free-speech rights and was unconstitutionally vague.

After a federal district court dismissed his suit in 1999, Gresham appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Aug. 31, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling in Gresham v. Peterson.

The panel noted that other federal courts had found that panhandling was a form of free speech. The panel also noted that "beggars at times may communicate important political or social messages" in their solicitations.

However, the panel determined that "the city has a legitimate interest in promoting the safety and convenience of its citizens on public streets."

The panel also determined that the ordinance, because it did not completely ban all panhandling, should be analyzed as a time, place and manner restriction on speech.

According to the panel, the ordinance was constitutional because it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government purpose and because it left open alternative avenues of communication.

The panel wrote that a beggar "may hold up signs requesting money or engage in street performances, such as playing music, with an implicit appeal for money." The appeals court panel also noted that the ordinance still allowed daytime panhandling as long as it was not "aggressive."

The court also determined that the phrase "aggressive panhandling" was not vague.

Kenneth Falk, legal director for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and Gresham's attorney, said he was not sure if the decision would be appealed. "We are happy the court recognized that this was a First Amendment activity, but we still believe that the restrictions are too onerous under the First Amendment and that the ordinance is vague," he said.

Beth White, deputy corporation counsel for the city, said the ordinance is an "appropriate time, place and manner restriction on panhandling" and "is not an unreasonable restriction on First Amendment rights."