Costa Mesa to put moratorium on enforcing solicitation ordinance

The city of Costa Mesa will put a halt to enforcing its solicitation ordinance, City Atty. Kimberly Hall Barlow confirmed on Tuesday night.

Earlier in the day, an attorney with the ACLU had said that the city has agreed to a moratorium on enforcing its controversial ordinance, until the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on another case challenging a similar ordinance.

In exchange, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of their clients claiming that Costa Mesa’s ordinance is unconstitutional, will temporarily hold off on pursuing the case, the ACLU lawyer said.

Costa Mesa agreed to a moratorium on its solicitation law pending a decision by the federal appellate court on a case challenging the city of Redondo Beach’s solicitation ordinance, officials with the ACLU and MALDEF said in a news release.

“This is definitely a victory for us that they have agreed not to enforce this ordinance,” Belinda Escobosa Helzer, an attorney with the ACLU’s Orange County office, said in a phone interview.

Last month, the civil rights groups filed the lawsuit against the city on behalf of two groups, the Assn. of Day Laborers of Costa Mesa and the Tonantzin Collective.

Although the lawsuit alleges the city’s ordinance violates job seekers’ constitutional rights to free speech, it came as a direct response to an undercover police operation that resulted in the arrest of 12 men, who were looking for jobs at three different locations. After promising the day laborers $8 an hour, the police officers cited them for violating the city’s law. The men were deported within two weeks of their arrest after police discovered they had all entered the country illegally.

Costa Mesa Police Chief Christopher Shawkey has said that the police’s undercover operation was a result of more than 100 complaints about day laborers from residents.

“The litigation only targets the language of the ordinance, although it’s clear that they are enforcing it primarily against day laborers,” Helzer said.