Replies

Another chunk of good news for California, but haven't been able to find it written up yet. Heard it on the radiddio.

Redondo Beach has been forbidden to enforce the law regarding solicitation...judge ordered today

Day worker arrests are halted in Redondo Beach
Federal judge's temporary restraining order targets city's ordinance aimed at those seeking jobs on street corners.

By Alison Shackelford
Copley News Service
Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Day laborers in Redondo Beach had their day in court Monday, and won -- temporarily, at least -- when a federal judge ruled that they can't be arrested for soliciting employment on public streets and sidewalks.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall issued a temporary restraining order against the city of Redondo Beach, preventing officials from arresting, warning or fining the workers, who have been targeted by police in recent months for violating a 15-year-old city ordinance limiting where they can solicit work.

In her ruling, Marshall wrote that "there are serious questions as to whether (the city's ordinance) is constitutional.

"The hardship that day laborers face due to possible arrests, fines and loss of livelihood outweighs the potential disruption of traffic flow and quality-of-life issues asserted by the city," she added.

The restraining order will remain in effect until Monday, when Marshall will rule on whether to grant a longer-lasting preliminary injunction against the city.

Lawyers for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed the lawsuit against Redondo Beach on behalf of the workers, said they were pleased with the decision.

"We feel like we have a really strong case," said MALDEF attorney Shaheena Simons, adding that she feels confident the judge will grant the preliminary injunction next week.

Jerry Goddard, city attorney for Redondo Beach, said the ruling was disappointing.

"We see this as a substantial safety issue," he said. Day laborers often run into the street to solicit business, causing traffic hazards, he said.

"I know that people are seeking employment, and I applaud that ... but streets are for people to drive on. If the court says we can't enforce this ordinance, it's going to create a safety issue," Goddard said.

MALDEF filed the lawsuit in mid-November after some of its attorneys marched with hundreds of day laborers to protest stepped-up enforcement of the city law. Plainclothes officers began conducting sweeps in August in response to increased complaints from local businesses, and dozens of workers were arrested and fined after hopping into cars with undercover officers.

Thomas Saenz, MALDEF's lead attorney on the case, argued that while the ordinance banned an array of otherwise legal activities, it had only been enforced against day laborers and thus violated their First Amendment rights.

"It's difficult to see the ordinance as anything but targeted against a specific group," Saenz said. A fund-raising high school car wash with students urging motorists to pull over should be impacted, but isn't, Saenz said.

While the livelihood of the day laborers could be severely hurt by Redondo Beach's ordinance, the city had other options for enforcement, Saenz continued. If the city bars workers from streets and sidewalks, they may have nowhere else to go.

"In parking lots, it is distinctly possible that private owners ... would seek to ban day laborers," Saenz said, adding that the city's "concerns with the flow of traffic could be easily addressed with existing laws."

The attorney who represented Redondo Beach in court Monday, Gene Ramirez, argued that the city wanted to regulate traffic hazards, not free speech.

"We're not opposed to day laborers," Ramirez told Marshall. "We're just opposed to the way they do it right now."

The ordinance is based on a Phoenix law that was deemed constitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1986.

"If it's good enough for the 9th Circuit in Phoenix, it's good enough for Redondo," Ramirez told the judge.

But Saenz argued that decision is outdated and differs in many respects from the Redondo Beach case. Marshall said his reasoning "raises serious questions" about the Redondo ordinance.