2003_0728_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Welsch and Mr. Talbot June 20, 2003 Page 3 government must directly advance a substantial governmental interest in a way that is not more extensive than necessary.' That analysis would apply to door -to -door sales. In looking at this issue, we found a case on point. In Project 0 s, Inc. v. City of Pocatello,, 942 F. 2d 63 (9" ir. 199 1), the Court of Appeals reviewed an ordinance similar to the City p s current ordinance and found it unconstitutional.2 There, the cities asserted that the governmental interest was in protecting the privacy and repose of its citizens in their homes, the protection of consumers, the regulation of commercial transactions and the prevention of crime. These are often the reasons given to justify such regulations, and can be termed the traditional- justifications. The Court accepted privacy, prevention of crime and consumer protection as substantial state interests. However, in rejecting the ordinance, that Court found that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to protect the government's interest. Narrowly tailored regulations are those in which the scope is reasonably drawn to achieve the government's interest. Regulations that disregard far less restrictive and more precise means are not g P narrowly tailored. 4 So. for instance, in the discussion undertaken by the Project 80 s case, the court suggested privacy interests are protected by limiting the reach of are ordinance to those situations where a resident has indicated that solicitors are uninvited. Fanning all solicitors from areas where people may not object to solicitation is broader than necessary. The Project 80's court also noted that there was little evidence that the ordinances protected residences from crime-, as the ordinances did not prohibit strangers from approaching the residences or from corning to the doorsteps to leave handbills. The Project 80's court, citing a number of decisions, noted that the interests the municipalities said it sought to serve -might be better accomplished by "'far less restrictive and more precise means." Privacy may be better served by prohibiting solicitation at households that have posted a sign or listed themselves in a registry. Crime could be regulated by licensing, registration, and the normal enforcement that goes along with that. Consumer protection might be served by providing for a period of free rescission of sales. In pointing out things such as this, the Project 80's court, like supreme court decisions, points out that restrictions which disregard far less restrictive and more precise means are not "narrowly tailored." I Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commn, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980). 2 The language of that ordinance, was: UNINVITED PEDDLERS PROHIBITED: The practice of going in and upon private residences in the Municipality by sohcitQrs, peddlers, hawkers, itinerant merchants or transient vendors of merchandise, not having been requested or invited to do so by the owner or occupant of said private premises, for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise and/or disposing of and/or peddling or hawking the same is hereby prohibited and punishable udder the rovisions of this Code Board of Tutees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 ( 1989). Project 80 "s, 942 F.2d at 638.