HomeMy WebLinkAboutMRSC Materials (Peddlers)xeguianon or reuuiers, ~oucuors, i emporary rviercnants ana ivionue vendors rage 1 or ~ iq
Muni+eipnl Research and Services Center of tNashington
Updated 10/08
Regulation of Peddlers, Solicitors, Temporary Merchants and
Mobile Vendors
Contents
^ About Peddlers Solicitors Temporary Merchants and Mobile Vendors
^ Draftino Ordinances -_S_tatutes
^ Review of Court Decisions
^ Common Provisions of_Ordinances
^ Ordinance Provisions
^ MRSC Related Pages
. Sidewalk Use Policies -Sidewalk vendors
About Peddlers, Solicitors, Temporary Merchants and Mobile Vendors
Cities, towns and counties have authority under their police power to license and regulate door-to-door
peddlers, solicitors, temporary merchants, and mobile vendors, and to impose reasonable license fees.
Such regulations are generally justified if they bear a reasonable relationship to public health, safety
and welfare concerns. Any ordinance that totally prohibits door-to-door solicitation may be subject to
challenge and should be carefully reviewed by legal council. See Revew_of Court Decisions
Drafting Ordinances -Statutes
^ Ch. 36.71 RCW -Peddlers' and Hawkers' Licenses
In drafting provisions for the regulation of peddlers, local governments should review the
provisions of Ch. 36.71 RCW relating to "Peddlers and Hawkers' Licenses." RCW 36.71.090
restricts the ability of cities and towns to prohibit sales or require licenses for the sale of farm
produce by farmers, gardeners, or other persons who have raised or gathered such produce.
RCW 36.71.020 requires peddlers to obtain a license from the appropriate county official before
peddling in any county of the state and RCW 36.71.050 Imposes penalties for peddling without a
county license.
^ Exemption for Veterans
R~24,.Q54 and ~_ restrict the collection of a local license fee from certain veterans
engaged in peddling, hawking, vending and the sale of goods.
^ Regulation of Charitable Solicitors
In the area of charitable solicitation, cities and counties should refer to the provisions of Ch_.
19.09 RCW requiring registration with the secretary of state and various information disclosures
by persons and organizations that solicit funds from the public for public charitable purposes.
RCW 19.09.100(11) recognizes local government authority to regulate charitable solicitation and
requires organizations to "comply with all local governmental regulations that apply to soliciting
for or on behalf of charitable organizations."
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/LegaUnuisances/peddlers.aspx 3/23/2009
ttegutarion of Peddlers, Solicitors, 'Temporary Merchants and Mobile Vendors Page 2 of 2
Regulation of door-to-door charitable solicitation including activities of religious organizations can
involve constitutional issues of free speech and religious freedom. We advise consultation with
your city or county's legal office when drafting regulations in this area. Many cities simply provide
exemptions in their regulations for charitable and religious organizations.
^ "Green River" Ordinances
Municipal ordinances which prohibit solicitors, peddlers, and itinerant merchants from calling on
private residences for the purpose of peddling or soliciting without the request or the invitation of
the occupant are sometimes referred to as "Green River ordinances" (from the case of Town of
Green River, Wyoming v. Fuller Brush Co., 65 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1933)). "Green River"
ordinances entirely prohibit and declare the practice of uninvited house-to-house canvassing to
be a nuisance.
Review of Cour~_.p~cision;
Common Provisions of Ordinances
Ordinances regulating peddlers, solicitors, temporary merchants and/or mobile vendors commonly
include the following types of provisions:
^ License Fees -imposed on a yearly or per-day basis.
^ License Application Form -requiring information concerning the proposed location of the activity,
the estimated length of time the activity will be carried on, descriptions of merchandise being offered
for sale, the hours of operation, and the names of references.
^ Background Check - primarily a check for any prior criminal records.
^ License Revocation -conditions for license revocation and appeal procedures.
^ License Display -requiring peddlers and solicitors to have in their possession and to display their
license.
^ Temporary Stands -standards and conditions for temporary stands.
^ Time and Plaee Restrictions -include restrictions on hours of conducting business, prohibition
where property owners post "No Peddling/Soliciting" signs, and requirements that temporary
merchants locate their businesses in compliance with zoning codes.
^ Exemptions -for nonprofit, charitable, and religidus organizations and for farmers and gardeners
selling fruits, vegetables, or other similar farm produce raised, gathered, or produced by such
persons (per RCW 36.71.090).
Ordinance Provisions
^ Asotin Municipal Code Chapter 5.08. -Commercial Solicitors and Itinerant Merchants
^ Bellingham Municipal Code Chanter 6.18 -Canvassers and Solicitors
^ Enumclaw Municipal Code Chaps€r 5.60 -Solicitors and Mobile Vendors
^ Kenmore
• Ordinance No. 04-0198 (~ 269 KB)- Regulations for peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants,
5-04
^ Pullman
• Ordinance No. 08-10 (~ 107 KB) Regulations for itinerant vendors, 7-08
• Resolution No._67-08(~ 29 KB) Fee schedulefior itinerant vendor permits,?-08
^ Puyallup Municipal Code Chapter 5.64 -Solicitors
^ Redmond Municipal Code Chapter 5.08 -Hawkers and Peddlers
^ SeaTac Municipal Code Chapter_5.10 -Solicitors and Canvassers
^ Seattle Municipal Code Chapter_6,260 -Residential Sales
^ Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 4.12 -Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/LegaUnuisances/peddlers.aspx 3/23/2009
About Regulation of Peddlers and Solicitors -Court Decisions
Reviewed 10/08
Page 1 of 2
Municipal Research and 3serric+es tenter of Washington
About Regulation of Peddlers and Solicitors -Court Decisions
General
Municipal ordinances which prohibit solicitors, peddlers, and itinerant merchants from calling on private
residences for the purpose of peddling or soliciting without the request or the invitation of the occupant
are sometimes referred to as "Green River" ordinances (from the case of Town of Green River,
Wyoming v. Fuller Brush Co., 65 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1933)). "Green River" ordinances entirely prohibit
and declare the practice of uninvited house-to-house canvassing to be a nuisance and misdemeanor
punishable by fine and imprisonment (Rhyne, The Law of Local Government Operations, pp 495-496).
Such ordinances have been upheld in the past by the United States Supreme Court. These types of
ordinances have been ruled unconstitutional when they prohibit religious or noncommercial door-to-
door solicitation. The U.S. Supreme Court on June 17, 2002 by a vote of 8-1, invalidated a Stratton,
Ohio ordinance that required canvassers to register and obtain a permit from the mayor's office before
going door-to-door promoting any cause (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc, v. Village
of Stratton). The Court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment as it applied to religious
proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills. See MRSC Web Page, U•S•
~.eR.rem.e...CgurtSaYS_No Perrrtit_.Required t.R._Sszlct_f_or Relgosls Reasons.
Other decisions include Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 95 L.Ed 1233, 71 S.Ct. 920 (1951). The
Breard decision was decided at a time when "commercial speech" was thought to be outside the
protection of the First Amendment. More recent Supreme Court Decisions question the analysis of the
Breard case and suggest that a complete ban on door-to-door solicitation would be found
unconstitutional today. See also McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §24.378 (3rd Ed.).
Even though the 1951 United States Supreme Court decision has not been expressly overruled, more
recent cases suggest that a total prohibition of door-to-door solicitation would be unconstitutional and
unenforceable. In Project 80's Inc, v. City of Pocat 'r. 1991), a city ordinance
prohibiting door-t p a s a i rs welcome" sign on the
house was ruled an unconstitutional infringement of free commercial speech. The court concluded that
the ordinance did not provide the least restrictive alternative available to accomplish the legitimate
governmental interests of protecting residential privacy and preventing crime. The Federal Court
decision invalidating the Cities of Pocatello and Idaho Falls' ordinances was the second time the Court
had invalidated the ordinances. The 1991 decision was the result of a remand order by the United
States Supreme Court of the earlier 1988 decision in Project 80's Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 876 F.2d 711
(9th Cir. 1991), vacated and, remanded, City of Idaho Falls v. Project 80's Inc., 493 U.S. 1013, 110
S.Ct. 709, 107 LEd.2d 730 (1990). Similar decisions have been reached by the Ohio Court of Appeals
in City of Tiffin v. Boor, 109 Ohio App. 3d 337, 672 NE2d 200 (Ohio Ap. 1996), the Oregon Supreme
Court in City of Hillsboro v. Purcell, 306 Or 547, 761 P.2d 510 (Ore., 1988) and an Illinois Federal
District Court in Green v. Village of5chaumburg, 676 F.Supp. 870 (ND III., 1988).
Washington
While there are no reported Washington court decisions on the validity of "Green River" ordinances, on
November 3, 2000 U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour issued an order (Peace Ackion_
Coalition v. City of Medina 01253 KB), Case No. C00-1811C) enjoining the city of Medina from
enforcing its regulations that require all solicitors and peddlers to register with the local police
department and submit to a criminal records check. In the words of the court, "the relevant portions of
the Medina Municipal Code constitute an improper prior restraint on speech protected by the First
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Legal/nuisances/nu-pedIntro.aspx 4/15/2009
About Regulation of Peddlers and Solicitors -Court Decisions
Page 2 of 2
Amendment, and are impermissibly overbroad and vague, chilling constitutionally protected speech."
See MRSC Web Page, Federal Court Strikes Down Medina Ordinan R gulating Door-to-Door
S9IiciYatl4n.
The 1951 Supreme Court Breard case upholding such ordinances was recently cited in the case of
Singleton v Jackson, 85 Wn.App. 835 (1997) (holding that adoor-to-door solicitor at a private
residence was a licensee rather than a trespasser or invitee for purposes of premises liability if the
front entry may be easily reached and there are no posted signs indicating strangers are not welcome).
The validity of local ordinances banning door-to-door sales, however, was not addressed. A decision to
totally prohibit door-to-door solicitation may not be defensible and should be carefully reviewed with
the attorney.
Other types of regulations of door-to-door solicitation such as licensing, registration and identiFcation
requirements have survived constitutional challenges and been upheld by the courts as appropriate
regulations. For example, the City of Pasco's ordinance on licensing and regulation of itinerant vendors
was upheld by the Federal Court in Hispanic Taco Vendors of Washington v. City of Pasco, 994 F.2d 676
(9th Cir. 1993). In drafting provisions for peddlers' and hawkers' licenses, the city should review the
provisions of chapter 36.71 RCW, especially RCW 36.71.090 restricting the ability of cities and counties
to prohibit sales or require licenses for sales of farm produce. In addition, RCW 73.04.050 and .060
restrict local regulation of certain veterans. The enclosed samples contain examples of the necessary
exemptions.
In the area of regulation of charitable solicitations, the city should refer to the provisions of chapter
19.09 RCW on charitable solicitations. It is recommended that other constitutional Issues raised by the
regulation of canvassing and solicitation involving religious activities should be discussed with legal
counsel
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/LegaUnuisances/nu-pedIntro.aspx 4/15/2009
Federal Court Strikes Down Medina Ordinance Regulating Door-to-Door Solicitation Page 1 of 1
Muntr3pnt Etesearch and Services Centev of Washington
Federal Court Strikes Down Medina Ordinance Regulating Door-to-Door Solicitation
December 1, 2000
On November 3 U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour issued an order (Peace ACl'1017
Coalition y. City of Medina, Case No. C00-1811C) (~ 252kb) enjoining the city of Medina from
enforcing its regulations that require all solicitors and peddlers to register with the local police
department and submit to a criminal records check. In the words of the court, "the relevant portions of
the Medina Municipal Code constitute an improper prior restraint on speech protected by the First
Amendment, and are impermissibly overbroad and vague, chilling constitutionally protected speech."
Not all regulations of peddlers and solicitors are illegal, but care must be taken to make sure that the
boundary has not been crossed. This case helps to define that boundary. We recommend that each city
review its ordinances to see if your code provisions may be open to similar constitutional challenge. The
plaintiffs were represented by an attorney from the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Read the legal memorandums filed by the parties:
^ Memorandum in SuQport of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
((b)
^ M_e_morandum_m Oppos..tio.n_to_Plaintff_s' Motion for a Temporary Restraming_Order and__Preliminary
in ~uaction
(~ 3.82Mb)
^ Reoly Memorandum in S~oort of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction
(~ 2.47Mb)
http://www.mrsc.orglfocus/MedinaSolitication.aspx 4/15/2009
