Aston's Panhandling Ordinance

I. The City of Aston’s Panhandling Ordinance Is A Valid, Content-Neutral Regulation Of Speech Under The First Amendment And Therefore, Does Not Violate Petitioner’s Right To Freedom Of Speech.

II. Petitioner Had No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In His Belongings When He Deliberately Abandoned Them In A Public Park Where The Public and Police Could Openly Enter.

ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………..…………….#
I. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT’S DECISION BECAUSE THE CITY OF ASTON PANHANDLING ORDINANCE IS A VALID, CONTENT-NEUTRAL TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTION OF SPEECH AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

A. The Aston City Ordinance Is A Content-Neutral Regulation And Thus Subject To Intermediate Scrutiny Because It Is Justified Without Reference To The Content Of The Regulated Speech.

B.
The Aston City Ordinance Is Narrowly Tailored To Serve A Significant Government Interest Of Protecting The Citizens And The Local Economy From Threatening Solicitations And Only Affects The Area Where The Panhandling Problem Was Most Pervasive.

C. The Aston City Ordinance Leaves Open Ample Alternative Channels Of Communication Because It Only Applies In The Square Area And Only Applies To Verbal Solicitation.

D. Regulations On Speech Are Warranted In Public Areas Due To The Frequent Intimidation, Intrusion, And Oftentimes Violent and Coercive Nature Of Panhandling, Which Oftentimes Leads Citizens To Avoid Certain Places In Fear Of Unwanted Solicitations.

II.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURTS RULING BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT FORFIETED ANY REASONABLY OBJECTIVE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHEN HE ABANDONED HIS BELONGINGS IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE ANY PATRON COULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO