Item 9 - Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing of Private Res.
r
~
-.GENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
---
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
JlIJIIeS L. Bowersox, City ~
Stephen M. Ec]d" City Attome~
~
FROM:
lNITIATED BY:
DATE:
July 14, 1992
SUBJECT:
Ordina.- Prohihiti".. Pic:ketill" of Private ResidP........ - First V.....din..
/l.RlWRACI':
In 1988 the United states Supreme Court held constitutional a
local ordinance which prohibited picketing directed at a single
residence. poway citizens have expressed a concern about the
organized picketing of the homes of individuals within the
community. The proposed ordinance would prohibit such picketing.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 1992 the City of poway received a letter on behalf
of one of the local civic associations which expressed a concern
about the organized picketing of a candidate's home by individuals
opposed to the candidate's personal beliefs. A copy of that letter
dated March 27, 1992 is attached to this staff report. The letter
urged consideration of an ordinance which would prohibit such
picketing. The letter was referred to the City Attorney who has
drafted such an ordinance for consideration by the city Council.
DISCUSSION:
In Frisbv v. Schultz, 48 U.S. 474 (1988) the united States
Supreme Court upheld a town ordinance which expressly made it
"unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the
residence or dwelling of any individual in the Town. . . ." The
Supreme Court construed that ordinance narrowly and found that if
the scope of the ordinance was limited to picketing directed at a
single residence, the ordinance survived constitutional scrutiny.
In that case, although the picketing in question had been orderly
and peaceful, the picketing had nevertheless generated substantial
controversy and numerous complaints.
ACTION:
1 of 6
9
CITY OF POW AY
AGENDA REPORT
July 14 . 1992
Page Two
The City Attorney has reviewed that case as well as related
First Amendment cases and has reviewed various ordinances drafted
to deal with this problem. In 1990 the County of Los Angeles
adopted a one section ordinance which essentially mirrored the
language of the ordinance in Frisbv. other California cities and
counties have adopted similar ordinances.
The rationale of the Supreme Court was that the ordinance was
a reasonable regulation of protected speech regulating only the
time, place and manner of the conduct. Picketing on residential
streets is not generally prohibited, but picketing focused on a
particular individual's residence is prohibited. Thus, the
ordinance permits the more general dissemination of the message
which the picketers may wish to communicate, but serves the state's
legitimate interest in protecting the "well-being, tranquility, and
privacy of the home," an interest "of the highest order in a free
and civilized society." The court held that the ordinance in
question was narrowly drawn to protect the privacy interest in
one's home and was therefore not overbroad in the constitutional
sense.
FINDINGS:
In the event that the Council adopts the proposed ordinance
the following findings would support such adoption:
1. The public interest requires the adoption of a narrowly-
drawn ordinance to protect private residences from picketing.
2. The proposed ordinance is narrowly drawn to prohibit only
picketing focused on and taking place in front of a particular
residence.
3. There exists a legitimate state interest in protecting
the well-being, tranquility and privacy of the home of an
individual member of the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None required.
2 of 6
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM
9
CITY OFPOWAY
AGENDA REPORT
.Tllly 14 ,1992
Page 'lb.ree
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minimal enforcement costs in the event that the ordinance is
violated. The exact amount of such cost is unknown
PUBUC NOTIF1CATION AND CORllF.~PONDENCE:
Poway Civic Association.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the city Council conduct first reading
and continue the public hearing to August 4
reading.
of the ordinance
, 1992 for second
III
Attachments:
1) Letter 7rom roway Civic Association
2) Proposed Ordinance
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM
9
3 of 6
,; \
-:;.:: ~.:-. C_,'
. -
,
:..=~ '"::;.,' I~~"~-
i:;"'r;~~
<r
.-
~~-,
APR '. ISS!.
" .-
'J:' I ,.
L~jTY 1','!i\~'
~-: r- ;-, <'
.'. ..'.
.' I "....~
POWAY
Cmc
AsSOCIATION
March 27, 1992
Mr. James Bowersox
City Manager
City of poway
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074
Dear Mr. Bowersox:
The poway Civic Association is concerned about a practice begun
in a previous poway election: the organized picketing of a
candidate's home by groups opposed to his beliefs. We feel that
home-targeted picketing is not an effort to communicate with the
public, but rather an attempt to intimidate and harass a
candidate and to drive him and those who share his views from the
political arena. We believe that poway needs an ordinance
outlawing this kind of harassment. Enclosed you will find copies
of such ordinances from other cities, which have successfully
withstood legal challenge. We request that staff prepare a model
ordinance similar to these for the council's consideration.
Sincerely,
&5;
~
Mike Fry
President
poway Civic Association
P.O. Box 551
Poway, CA 92074-551
4 of 6
JUl 1 4 1992 ITEM
9
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
ADDING CHAPTER 9.02 TO THE POWAY MUNICIPAL CODE
PROHIBITING THE PICKETING OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City council of the City of
poway in enacting this Ordinance to prohibit picketing focused on
and taking place in front of a particular residence in order to
preclude intrusion upon the privacy of the targeted resident; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council that this
Ordinance be interpreted consistent with the interpretation given
to a similar ordinance by the United states supreme Court in Frisbv
v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 9.02 is hereby added to the poway Municipal Code to
read as follows:
CHAPTER 9.02
PICKETING
Section 9.02.010. Picketina Private Residence
Prohibited.
Picketing of a private residence is prohibited. It
is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing
before or about the residence or dwelling of any
individual.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30)
days after the date of its passage; and before the expiration of
fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once
with the names of members voting for and against the same in the
powav News Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation published
in the City of Poway.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of poway held the day of ,
1992, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
5 of 6
JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM 9
said City council held the _ day of
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ORDINANCE NO.
Paqe Two
,
1992,
by the
JAN GOLDSMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
6 of 6
JUl 1 4 1992 ITEM
9