Violation of Constitutional rights in San Diego with respect to door-to-door solicitation? (felons, rating)

[Greatday]

No Solicitation / Solicitors Allowed.

Solicitors are subject to being shot for violation of the above


A friend of mine has had no solicitors since posting the sign above

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by carlos123

I thought this might make an interesting discussing so..I started this thread to discuss it with whoever wishes to engage in such a discussion.

If this is not the right forum to discuss this in...can someone let me know such that I could then start it in the right forum or at least have it moved there (if any mod cares to do that)?

If you are not interested in this issue, wish that all door to door solicitors would just disappear or be arrested, or want to beat up on me for even thinking of going to door to door...please do me a favor and go hang out on some other thread. I am interested in discussing the issue...not why my faith in God is silly (if you think it's silly), why I want to go door to door, who I think I am wanting to discuss this, or any other such topic irrelevant to a discussion of the issue itself.

I have been looking at various cases where the Supreme Court struck down local ordinances that restricted door-to-door canvassing or solicitation with an interest in seeing if San Diego's ordinances meet Constitutional muster.

It seems, and I stress seems, that San Diego's demands on their application for door-to-door solicitation violate several Constitutional principles or things that are considered essential to maintaining those principals.

Among them the right to anonymity on the part of the solicitor, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to due process of law.

San Diego's door-to-door solicitation permit application completely strips a door to door solicitor of their right to anonymity in that all information given, and their demand for information is excessive, must be made available to anyone that requests it through a California open records act request. The information they demand includes things like one's Social Security number, where one has lived and worked for the last five years, all phone numbers, addresses, birth date, place of birth, and all manner of other information.

San Diego limits the kinds of speech that can be exercised before a person's door and unfairly prejudices their ordinance against those who they do not want going door to door. As opposed to those who they more freely allow to go door to door (such as Girl Scouts selling cookies).

San Diego demands excessive disclosure of non-relevant information from those who would go door to door in an attempt to prevent fraud or criminal activity on the part of the solicitors without proving that such demands should reasonably be applied more to certain types of solicitors (such as commercial solicitors vs religous solicitors) than others. Violating due process of law.

Those are just my thoughts off the bat. I am still investigating this issue and I may be incorrect in some of my take on what is Constitutional or what is not but...that is why I started this thread .

I would be very interested in hearing any input on this from anyone who might have an interest in discussing this in a respectful manner. I say that in order to encourage fruitful discussion in the hope, perhaps naive hope, that those who just want to engage in mean spirited and otherwise derogatory comments will go exercise their speech on another thread .

It remains to be seen if my hope is realized.

Carlos

Local governments have the right to ban door to door solicitation in a given area. That was established years ago. So they should have the right legally to limit it in lesser ways. A ban on door to door solicitation between midnight and 4 am seems reasonable to me. I think it would to most people. Thank God for what's left of privacy. It starts at your threshold. It's stone age telemarketing, or spam, and the same principals apply. I love Missouri's no-call list.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by Greatday

No Solicitation / Solicitors Allowed.

Solicitors are subject to being shot for violation of the above


A friend of mine has had no solicitors since posting the sign above

I've seen these in Arkansas. They're illegal in Missouri.

What I did do once that I think was effective was after returning from the rifle range I taped up a couple of targets with exceptionally nice gouping on the from and back door.

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I don't think that many posters are either thinking this through or thinking at all.

There are fundamental rights at stake in this ordinance. For one, it would be entirely far too burdensome for a political campaign which relies on volunteers to apply for permits to solicit support door to door. Nor, should those volunteers identity be a part of the public record. The same would apply to any number of grass roots organizations whether they are from the National Right to Life Committee or the to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League

The right to go to someone's home, even uninvited, for the purpose of political discussion, I would think, is an inherent part of the rights to freely assemble and the right to free speech. Placing onerous obstacles that would put a chilling affect on those rights should be seen as a clear abridgment.

Thanks for speaking up ovcatto. You know it is really something to see the incredible rudeness, argumentativeness, and downright meanness of some of those in the San Diego forum.

Sometimes it honestly seems like the worst of the worst in San Diego has come here to take out their frustrations on those who post here that, like me, might be different than the norm in their outlook, chosen lifestyle, or dare I say faith?

If I was to decide on the basis of how one's have responded to me here as to whether to come to San Diego or not...I would never come here.

Fortunately real life San Diegan's are much nicer, more understanding, more patient, and more willing to be respectful than those here who hide behind their anonymity to launch personal attacks on whoever they wish.

So...I appreciate the way you have addressed the issue ovcatto. Truly I do.

It's like people here don't seem to think to think things through. They just shoot from the hip and let fly whatever comes to mind.

This issue has far broader implications and repurcussions than just whether a Jehovah Witness can come to the door. Or whether someone going door to door is allowed to ask people if they want their curbs painted.

But...people just don't seem to get it. That our freedoms in this country are being slowly eroded and people...at least here...don't seem to care much. Or if they care about freedom and justice they don't seem to be aware of how one thing, like making an unreasonable demand for irrelevant information on the part of wanna-be curb side painters, can affect the freedom of us all.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me too much in that if one goes back in San Diego history to the 1910's one can see the roots of some our present problems here...by looking at what happened then. Just as one can understand a person's present behaviour by looking at their childhood to some extent.

San Diego has a very sordid history when it comes to free speech issues. At one time there were gangs of government sanctioned vigilantes beating up and otherwise harassing those who were for free speech rights.

If anyone cares to look up "Free Speech Movement and San Diego" they will be given plenty to read about. It's not pretty.

The burden that San Diego imposes on those who would want to go door to door to solicit is unbelievable. Dare I say absurd! And it should be challenged in court as violating serveral constitutional principles.

If I may let me list the information that is demanded on the Curb Painter application.

It's called a Curb Painter application but the application says that it is required of all persons doing business door-to-door or business-to-business.

Bear in mind in reading the following that this is for curb side painting. We are not talking about applying to become a police officer, judge, or other public official from whom we might reasonable expect to demand the kind of information that is demanded of a curb side painting wanna-be.

Before I get to the information required...here are the fees.

Application Fee - $45 (not sure that this is for)
Regulatory Fee - $45 (again no explanation as to what this is for)
Live Scan Fingerprints - $60
Photograph/Special Registration Card - $25
Business Tax Certificate - $75

Regarding the fees that's a pretty stiff price if you ask me.

Now for the information demanded...

Name
Residence Address, City, Zip
Date of Birth
Age
Race
Sex
Height
Weight
Hair
Eyes
Driver's Licence or ID Numbert
SSN#
Business Name
Business Address
Other Names Used
Mailing Address
Residential Phone Number
Business Phone Number
Cell Phone Number
Fax Number
Internet Web Site Address
Place of Birth

In addition to the above one must provide the following:

Previous Residence Addresses for the last five years.
Previous Occupations for the last five years.
Previous Places of Employment for the last five years.
Previous Schooling for the last five years.
Similar permits or licences issued for the last five years.
List of all criminal convictions including all expunged convictions.

Then at the bottom of the application there is the most absurd demand of all ...

"PLEASE BE ADVISED THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE ON YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT".

Did you catch that?

ALL the information I have listed MUST be made available to any Joe who makes a California Public Records Act request for that information.

Anybody here want to submit to such an application?

Their demand for information and their insistance on one agreeing to make ALL the information submitted available for public viewing puts a severe damper on the exercise of at least commercial speech.

The application and the copy of the official regulations included in the application packet make it seem that one could get into trouble if one does not submit to the above demands...even if they are going door to door to wish people a Merry Christmas.

They make it seem that unless one is an officially recognized Non-Profit Organization that one cannot go door to door without a permit.

Even in the case of Non-Profit Organizations the regulations strongly suggest that the solicitor possess an identification card, a letter from the organization, and all kinds of other things.

The whole application makes one not want to go door to door at all. Whether one is sharing God's love, seeing if people want a window cleaning, a curbside painting, or selling Girl Scout cookies.

It is onerous and devoid of reasonableness with respect to adequately justifying the demand for much of the information requested.

What does weight have to do with curb side painting?
What difference does it make where I have gone to school for the last five years?
What difference does it make where I have worked?
What about the demand for my Social Security Number? It was never meant as a tracking number to keep track of me or look up information about me.
What difference does it make whether I am a male or female with respect to whether I can do a great job of curbside painting??

Yes...some of that information might be useful in doing a criminal investigation which is an additional part of the application (as if the above was not enough). But why must EVERY curbside wanna-be be required to submit to a criminal investigation? Including having to hand in fingerprints?

Has it been established on reasonable grounds that curbside painters are more prone to committ criminal acts that the City must protect residents from than say...Census takers? Or those going around introducing their run for public office? Or even those who want to go around and take spiritual interest surveys?

Why is so much demanded of curbside painters?

Why?

Could it be that the City of San Diego simply does not want door to door solicitors? Such that they make the licencing so onerous as to discourage any such activity?

I was told that only TEN people had a curbside painting permit. Just TEN.

I wonder why...

So here we have a City under the color of law...suppressing an activity that it does not want happening...through an excessive and onerous demand for information that is then readily available to anyone that wants it. A demand for information that has little to do with anything that will really protect the public from curbside painters. Other than to discourage anyone interested in doing this from even bothering to apply.

As I said...I think there are several things in this whole licencing approach with respect to door to door solicitors that doesn't seem right to me.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by delusianne

After staring at the original post for a few minutes, now I think he's saying the detailed information is required on the permit application, not required to be shown to residents.

That is correct delusianne. I did not mean to say or imply that the detailed information is required to be shown to residents.

It is demanded on the application. I should add however that one filling out the application MUST agree to make ALL the information given a matter of public record. Available to anyone who makes a request for it through a California Open Records Act request.

So much for protecting my identity from those who would want to steal it or abuse it. By handing in the application it becomes a matter of public record.

Registration with the city or county isnt an onerous request.

It isn't if it's just a simple registration. It is...if one realizes the extent of what they are demanding on their application (which I have detailed in my other post).

Carlos

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

A ban on door to door solicitation between midnight and 4 am seems reasonable to me. I think it would to most people.

That is more than reasonable fatchance. The Supreme Court has upheld bans from 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM I think. Anything outside those time limits would probably not pass Supreme Court scrutiny.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by tigerlily

From my own experience, "No Solicitation" signs are not observed. They are completely ignored by solicitors.

First off I know for a fact that your experience is not representative of all solicitors (commercial or otherwise). I know of solicitors that fully respect all no solicitation signs.

It is indeed a misdemeaner to ignore such a sign on your door. A crime.

But if one solicitor or even many ignore such a sign and if one or more homeowners do not charge such solicitors with a crime that does not mean that all solicitors should be banned outright.

The fact that your experience is different from mine does not prove anything other...than that your experience is different than mine.

If one person steals from me while in my home...do I ban all people from entering my home?

If one person calls me a nut do I ban all public speech to prevent anyone else from calling me a nut?

Our society has moved away from one where free persons exercise personal responsibility. To one of where we look to the government to protect us from the few who do bad things.

So...laws are passed or desired to be passed that limit the exercise of freedom (of speech or other freedom) on the part of the many because of the few who do that which is not right.

Does anyone not see how such an approach will erode our freedoms until there are few if any left?

Let me give an example....

It is against the law to jaywalk. Why?

Why should my freedom, as a free and responsible man (i.e. someone who is responsible for the consequences of my own actions), be denied me to look both ways and walk across the street when there is no traffic?

Why must my freedom be denied me in an attempt to restrict free but unresponsible persons from making traffic come to a halt or being run over by walking across the street when they shouldn't?

As a society we need to make laws that punish or restrict wrong doing. And just that.

Not laws which take away freedoms from those who do no wrong but might.

If a solicitor is comitting a wrong doing then we, as a society, need to punish the wrong doer and not restrict the freedom of other solicitors to exercise free speech rights just because of the one who did the wrong.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by CarolinaCowboy

I think it's day has passed, as 90% of home owners get angry when people come to their home. tHE very least of which is is extremely annoying! It's my property, not your public constitutional right to come onto it, UNLESS I INVITE YOU!

My experience of door to door solicitation has been very different than what you say CarolinaCowboy. I have personally done door to door solicitation a lot in my life. Both to get out the message of God's forgiveness and to start a business.

And I have only ever, just once, and I mean just once...ever had the door slammed in my face. And that was by a person who did not even know what I wanted as he did not even give me a chance to say one word.

Of the hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of doors that I have knocked on in my life...just that one reacted that way.

EVERY other person....and I mean EVERY other person, has listened politely, many times even thanked me, and either rejected what I had to offer or expressed a willingness to talk more or use my services.

I don't even recall anyone being rude or obnoxious, sicking the dog on me, telling me to get lost or they would shoot me, or otherwise.

I think this is a case where the impression given by the vehemence against door to door solicitation expressed on this forum is not indicative at all of the reaction of people to door to door solicitors in real life.

Just as the general rudeness on this forum (not speaking of you or anyone in particular) is not at all indicative of the respectful and nice way in which San Diegans have dealt with me in real life. Overall I would say San Diegans are some of the nicest people I have met. Something that is not at all indicated by the way many have reacted to me on this forum.

Carlos

[carlos123]

Originally Posted by CarolinaCowboy

...It's my property, not your public constitutional right to come onto it, UNLESS I INVITE YOU!

You bring up a common theme present in that which several posters have said.

But...the view that it is your property and not a constitutional right to come to your front door to spread a message is not supported by the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Unless you post a no solicitation or similar sign on the door. Which almost no one has, notwithsanding the implication that many persons have such signs on their doors as might be suggested by some of the posts here.

Again real life and what posts here imply about real life is...well...a bit contradictory.

Carlos

[Swampmonster]

Originally Posted by carlos123

You bring up a common theme present in that which several posters have said.

But...the view that it is your property and not a constitutional right to come to your front door to spread a message is not supported by the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Unless you post a no solicitation or similar sign on the door. Which almost no one has, notwithsanding the implication that many persons have such signs on their doors as might be suggested by some of the posts here.

Again real life and what posts here imply about real life is...well...a bit contradictory.

Carlos

I have a "PRIVATE PROPERTY:Violaters WILL be prosecuted" sign at the end of my driveway and it's not a joke in the least...I shouldn't have to hang a no solicitation sign along with that should I?......Most people around here are not very receptive to solicitors and thankfully the Sheriff's Dept and the State's Attorney take trespassing serious enough for them to arrest and prosecute.And THAT is real life for you around here.

If I understand your OP correctly you are spreading GOD's message and that in my opinion is noble (I think it's VERY wrong to mix business in with it tho'),but a persons private property still should not be open to ANYONE univited and you should respect that.