The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday its second federal lawsuit in as many years against the City of Cranston regarding “anti-panhandling” legislation.

The Cranston City Council passed an ordinance 5-4 in February, entitled “Solicitation in Roadways Prohibited,” which prevents anyone from entering into or standing in a roadway to receive or distribute anything to a person in a vehicle. Examples would include any sort of boot donations, leafleting and, most controversially, any homeless trying to solicit money.

In April 2016, the ACLU and Cranston settled a lawsuit involving a similar ordinance, and Cranston had to stop enforcing it as a result. The ACLU argues this version of the ordinance violates the First Amendment.

Volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger said there would be a motion filed to urge the court to place a “temporary restraining order” on the ordinance, which she sees as nearly identical to the previous law.

“Our position is this new version is no different in substance from the one the city acknowledged was unconstitutional and that it suffers from the same legal defects as the earlier ordinance,” Labinger said.

The city considers the legislation a public safety issue, and backed up its claims with some new statistics when the law was passed. The ordinance lists more than 20 high-volume intersections where double-digit accidents had taken place over the past year.

The Council also added that Cranston police officers noted that allowing such distribution into and out of cars could “give rise to reasonable suspicion that illegal narcotics transactions and/or illegal prostitution may be taking place.”

Labinger failed to see a connection between those accident figures and making the roadways any safer by eliminating those interactions.

“The City Council cited numerous intersections where car accidents had occurred, but made no correlation between those accidents and people engaging in panhandling or leafleting activities,” Labinger said.

Mayor Allan Fung responded to the lawsuit on Tuesday morning in a statement to the Herald, doubling down on the ordinance and adding that the city is ready to fight back in court.

“The ordinance does not restrict speech, does not target any specific form of solicitation or any specific person or group of people,” Fung said. “The narrowly-tailored ordinance is simply a tool to prevent dangerous circumstances within bust roadways and intersections.”

Attending the press conference were ACLU RI Executive Director Steven Brown, R.I. Homeless Advocacy Project Director Barbara Freitas, Plaintiff Karen Rosenberg and House of Hope CDC Director Laura Jaworski. The RIHAP is also a plaintiff, along with Deborah Flitman and Francis White, Jr., who were not present.

Brown spoke briefly, repeating his two key talking points on the ordinance: That it violates the First Amendment and is intended to “criminalize” poverty.

“I think we all recognize that there is a crisis of poverty in the state, as there is in the country, but unfortunately the City of Cranston’s response to this is to continue to criminalize it,” Brown said.

Freitas, who helped organize the March 27 panhandling protest at the intersection of Sockanosset Cross Road and New London Avenue, echoed Brown’s sentiments.

“It’s a sad state of affairs that we even have to be here,” Freitas said. “What’s the problem here? People’s attitude towards homelessness and poverty, or is it actually the panhandling that bothers people. I think people have a real problem facing homelessness. They see it on the street and it makes them really uncomfortable. Maybe they see it on the street and it hits too close to home.”

Rosenberg, member of the community involvement group Cranston Action Network, said she spoke out against the ordinance months ago and said the law has prevented her from educating her fellow residents through acts like leafleting.

She also said it hinders her ability to be a Good Samaritan. For the past couple of years, she has carried a wad of $1 bills in her car to distribute one at a time to “needy” people she may see at an intersection.

“It interferes with my ability to exercise my conscience,” Rosenberg said of the ordinance. “It’s important to realize the Cranston ordinance doesn't only harm panhandlers, [but] it limits the free speech rights of everyone.”

The lawsuit does not directly affect the six violations of the ordinance that head to court Thursday as a result of the March 27 protest.

Labinger said a trial schedule has not been established yet.