Sacramento City-Wide Crimewatch

Convenience/Liquor Stores City & State Codes

Discussion on Codes for dealing with Bonfare Market

Search for "panhandle, panhandling, aggressive panhandling, begging in the Sacramento City Codes you will find no protection for residential or commercial property owners other that specific "Malls". In other words, equal protection under the law doesn't apply to us.

City Code Section: 12.44.220 Solicitation of funds prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided herein, no person shall beg, solicit funds or seek contributions for any private or commercial purposes (excluding religious or political purposes) upon a mall except when such activity has been specifically authorized by a permit issued for a special event. (Prior code § 51.04.404) (The term "mall," as used in this chapter, means any and all pedestrian malls located within the city which are described in Section 12.44.020 of this chapter. Under that section only portions of the K Street Mall and Chinatown Mall are protected.

Police Officers often ask if the conduct we complain about constitutes "aggressive panhandling". Look that up in the City Codes and you will find one sole reference to the word "Aggressive".

"Aggressive behavior" means any action by an animal that places a person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

(Don't even think about applying the term animal to a human.) However, there is are Penal Code sections that may specifically apply:

647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(c) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms.


602.1. (a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner's agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner's agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

It is interesting however that bars and places that sell alcoholic beverages are covered by law, while off-sale stores are not. Perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest the Legislature fix that. This section can't be modified by city code per state law.

303a. It shall be unlawful, in any place of business where alcoholic beverages are sold to be consumed upon the premises, for any person to loiter in or about said premises for the purpose of begging or soliciting any patron or customer of, or visitor in, such premises to purchase any alcoholic beverage for the one begging or soliciting. Violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor.

Further, there is a Business and Professional Code that's worthy of revision as well. Not all such place are as responsible as some who are on our list:

25657. It is unlawful:
(b) In any place of business where alcoholic beverages are sold to be consumed upon the premises, to employ or knowingly permit anyone to loiter in or about said premises for the purpose of begging or soliciting any patron or customer of, or visitor in, such premises to purchase any alcoholic beverages for the one begging or soliciting.

Every person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

There are other applicable ordinances the police could use with respect to place like Bonfare. They have two pay telephones just outside the store. I remember the drive to bar them when one was installed next to the sidewalk and alley. Instead, they were moved onto store property. Here's something police officers might use.


City Code Section: 5.92.020 Pay telephones--Public nuisance.

Any pay telephone which is used as an instrumentality for or contributes substantially by its presence to any of the following conditions is declared to be a public nuisance:

A. Selling or giving away controlled substances (as defined in Division 10 of the California Health and Safety Code); soliciting, agreeing to engage in, or engaging in any act of prostitution; or other criminal activity;

B. Consumption of alcoholic beverages on nearby outdoor public or private property except where outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages is specifically authorized pursuant to a license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control;

C. Loitering on nearby public or private property;

D. Excessive noise;

As used in this section, “loitering” shall mean remaining on any property under such circumstances that a reasonable person would conclude that the person who remains on the property does not have a purpose connected with the usual and ordinary use to which such property is put, does not have bona fide intent to exercise a constitutional right, and is causing public inconvenience or annoyance. (Prior code § 61.12.1202)

Is panhandling deemed a "Constitutional Right" in our city? Here again, the City Code limits enforcement and we're left out in the cold.


City Code Section: 9.04.030 Loitering.

A. For purposes of this section, "loitering" means entering and remaining on any premises specified by this section under such circumstances that a reasonable person would conclude that the person who has entered and remains on such premises:

1. Does not have a purpose legitimately connected with the business or activity of the legal occupant of the premises; and

2. Does not have a bona fide intent to exercise a constitutional right; and

3. Is causing public inconvenience or annoyance.

B. It is unlawful and a violation of this section if any person:

1. Loiters in any bus depot, railway station, airport or on the grounds of any common carrier, or in a place open to the public immediately adjacent to any bus depot, railway station, airport, or common carrier, including any ancillary food service premises maintained primarily for the convenience of the customers of said carrier, except those parts of such depot, station, airport, or grounds thereof that are occupied by business other than that of a common carrier or ancillary food service; and

2. Such person refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police, owner, occupant or agent thereof to leave the premises or, after complying with such lawful order, such person returns within forty-eight (48) hours and resumes loitering as defined above. (Prior code § 26.01.003)

It seems to me there is a remedy for our neighborhoods for those willing to take action:

City Code Section: 17.212.090 Modification or discontinuance of a use established prior to special permit requirements.
A. Planning Commission May Order Modification or Discontinuance of Any Use Established Prior to Special Permit Requirements. An existing use which would require a special permit, but for the fact that it was lawfully established without a special permit before the special permit requirement became effective, or at the time of annexation or consolidation into the city, may be ordered modified or discontinued if it is determined:

1. That the use is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public peace, health or safety; or

2. That the use is being conducted in a manner so as to constitute a public nuisance; or

3. That the use as operated or maintained has resulted in repeated nuisance activities, including, but not limited to, public inebriation, drinking in public, loitering, excessive littering, public urination, disturbances of the peace, harassment of passersby, excessive noise, illegal drug activity, gambling, prostitution, sale of stolen property, theft, assaults, batteries, vandalism, or police detentions and arrests.

B. Applies to Any Use. This section shall apply to any use in the city as provided in subsection A of this section, whether commercial or residential, and whether the use is presently conforming or nonconforming, including, but not limited to, the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises or off-premises sales.

C. Conduct of the Proceedings. The proceeding shall be conducted in the same manner as a proceeding to revoke or modify a special permit as set forth in Section 17.212.080 of this chapter.

D. Zoning Administrator's or Planning Commission's Order. Upon a determination by the zoning administrator or planning commission that the use is being conducted in a manner so as to constitute a public nuisance, the zoning administrator or planning commission may order that the use be discontinued, or if the use is to continue, that it only do so if the person or entity maintaining the use complies with conditions approved by the zoning administrator or planning commission. The zoning administrator's and planning commission's authority for imposition of conditions shall include, but not be limited to, imposition of any reasonable condition upon the continued operation of the use, for compliance, and the period of time the conditions will remain in effect.

E. Failure to Comply with Order. Where a continued use has been conditioned by the zoning administrator or planning commission and the person or entity maintaining or operating the use fails to fully comply with the conditions imposed, the city may take legal or administrative action. The city's legal or administrative remedies shall include, but not be limited to, seeking a further order of the zoning administrator or planning commission to order the use discontinued or further modified or conditioned, legal or equitable action, and imposition of administrative penalties in accordance with this title or this code.

F. Appeal. An appeal of an order of the zoning administrator or planning commission issued pursuant to this chapter may be taken in accordance with Chapter 17.200 of this title. The appeal must be requested within ten (10) days of the decision of the zoning administrator or planning commission or the decision of the zoning administrator or planning commission is final. (Ord. 99-015 § 7-5-I)

Okay... if you haven't fallen asleep yet, I want you to think about that 602(k) sign the city said you had to buy for police to protect your property from unwelcome guests. See any sign requirement here?


602.5. (a) Every person other than a public officer or employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment in performance of a duty imposed by law, who enters or remains in any noncommercial dwelling house, apartment, or other residential place without consent of the owner, his or her agent, or the person in lawful possession thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Every person other than a public officer or an employee acting within the course and scope of his employment in performance of a duty imposed by law, who, without the consent of the owner, his or her agent, or the person in lawful possession thereof, enters or remains in any noncommercial dwelling house, apartment, or other residential place while a resident, or another person authorized to be in the dwelling, is present at any time during the course of the
incident is guilty of aggravated trespass punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Lastly, let me suggest a scenario here: Three imposing thugs walk up to your car when you pull into a store and ask for money. Yeah, you're nervous. When you hesitate, one gets abusive and demanding. Believe it or not, there are still cops on our streets that would be willing to take this step provided by law.



Penal Code Section: 211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

212. The fear mentioned in Section 211 may be either:
1. The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family; or,
2. The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 664, attempted robbery in violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

664. Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts

665. Sections 663 and 664 do not protect a person who, in attempting unsuccessfully to commit a crime, accomplishes the commission of another and different crime, whether greater or less in guilt, from suffering the punishment prescribed by law for the crime committed.

Extreme measure? Depends on how fearful you were and how willing you are to press the matter.

Dave

Reply from City Attorney

An attorney from the City Attorney's office called this evening. We had a very pleasant conversation. While he made it clear the City Attorney is not yet authorized by the District Attorney to prosecute these matters that's still one of their goals. Further, at this point, their office neither provides legal council to citizens nor renders interpretations of the law to us. They serve exclusively as counsel to the Mayor and City Council. That said, we had an "informal" and hypothetical discussion.

It appears the term "agressive" as it applies to panhandling may have worked it way up through the courts and here, as a result of the city code language. I've added emphisis to the languange that applies. And yes, none of the terms we searched would pull this section up.

Sacramento City Code: 5.120.030 Prohibited:
A. It is unlawful for any person to coerce, threaten, hound, or intimidate another person for the purpose of soliciting alms on any street or other place that is open to the public, whether publicly or privately owned. A violation of this section is an infraction.

B. It is unlawful and an infraction for any person to provide an unsolicited service and thereafter solicit or demand alms and/or other items of value. (Prior code § 10.05.701) (This item for the guy who washed your car window then demanded money)

When I offered the following section of the Penal Code as another remedy, especially where the same offender would just move to another location to resume the activity, I think he found agreement with that logic.

647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(c) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms.

Maybe the police will weigh in on this one. My thinking is this: If the same person is caught doing the same illegal activity after being warned, is cited and then caught again, they can be booked in jail under the provision that the behavior is likely to continue.

Email us
webmaster@crimewatch.us

Search The Law and Court Files

Search Sacramento City Codes:
Search All State of California Codes:
Search Sacramento County Courts