Committee flags First Amendment, background‑check and liability questions in solicitor proposal

A committee member asked whether a provision that bars solicitation on private property displaying a "no soliciting" sign could unintentionally prohibit noncommercial or expressive activities, and whether that would create a First Amendment issue. "Is that making if a religious group goes that's noncommercial, it's included in our noncommercial definition, Are we creating a 1st amendment right issue with that definition?" the member asked.

Staff responded that the city attorney had previously reviewed the document and staff would obtain clarified direction on the scope and wording for posted-premises language. Committee members also proposed requiring background checks for solicitors; Sergeant O'Brien cautioned that recent case law regarding street vendors limits law enforcement’s ability to run extensive background checks and advised staff to consult the city attorney to avoid overreach.

The committee directed staff to research how other agencies handle background checks and posted-premises language and to return with legally vetted amendments. The city will not adopt language until legal concerns about exempt expressive activity and background-check authority are resolved.