Ore. Police Officer’s Signs May Be Illegal

EUGENE, Ore. – A police officer’s spraypainted signs on curbs and sidewalks are coming under fire. The white and red “no trespassing” and “no soliciting” signs – meant to ward off panhandlers – may be illegal, according to city officials. That’s because begging is legal in Oregon and, as such, the signs could represent an infringement.

But Eugene police officer Randy Ellis says the best thing about the “no soliciting,”"no trespassing” signs he painted on curbs and sidewalks around Eugene is that they work.

Panhandlers have left the corners where signs began appearing about six months ago.

“It was so effective, it shocked me how simple it was,” Ellis told the Register Guard newspaper.

While the signs have won praise from Eugene business owners, they have sparked complaints from advocates for the homeless. And legal experts say Ellis does not have the law on his side.

In 1996, the Oregon Appeals Court found the state’s anti-soliciting statute unconstitutional.

A number of state law enforcement agencies have been sued for trying to enforce it, and they faced settlements ranging from $5,000 to $25,000, said Kevin Neely, a spokesman for Attorney General Hardy Myers.

But when it comes to officers painting signs on public property, city policy isn’t crystal clear, said Eric Jones, spokesman for Eugene’s Public Works department.

Earlier this week, Jones condemned the signs as “graffiti” – not realizing they had been painted by members of the city’s police force. Ellis said his signs have been so effective that other police officers have asked to borrow his stencil and paints and several have since painted their own.

Federal guidelines govern signs that deal with pedestrians and traffic, and must be approved by the city’s traffic engineer before being posted, Jones said.

Ellis counters that property owners can post no-trespassing signs on their property – and sidewalks typically belong to the property owners, he said.

But that’s not always true, Jones said. Sometimes the government agency that owns the road also owns the adjacent property – in which case painting a “no soliciting” sign would violate the state statute.

—

Information from: The Register-Guard