Proposed Aggressive Panhandling Law Fails in Thompson

THOMPSON, N.Y. — A proposed local law aimed at aggressive panhandling failed to gain enough support from the Thompson Town Board on Aug. 18, following a discussion centered on traffic safety, enforcement and the constitutional protections afforded to people asking for money in public places.

The measure, Proposed Local Law No. 3 of 2026, would have added Chapter 171, titled “Panhandling, Aggressive,” to the Town of Thompson Code.

The proposal was developed amid concerns about people soliciting money along busy commercial areas of Route 42, including near the Thompson Square shopping plaza and the McDonald’s area, where people can sometimes be seen standing near intersections and medians holding signs asking motorists for money.

The Town Board had previously held a public hearing on the proposed law on July 7.

The proposed law was not a blanket prohibition on panhandling. Instead, it targeted what the town described as “aggressive” solicitation, including threatening or intimidating behavior, unwanted physical contact, following someone, blocking pedestrian or vehicle traffic or causing a driver to take evasive action.

It also would have restricted certain forms of solicitation near automated teller machines, banks, bus stops and parking lots and prohibited aggressively soliciting occupants of vehicles from sidewalks or alongside roadways.

During the Aug. 18 discussion, Sullivan County Undersheriff Eric Chaboty warned board members that enforcement of panhandling laws has become complicated by court rulings protecting requests for money as speech under the First Amendment.

“You have to be aware that there’s a Supreme Court decision that basically says that they’re protected by the First Amendment when they’re out there asking for money,” Chaboty told the board. “They’re asking for help according to this decision.”

Chaboty explained that the key distinction for law enforcement is often between a person peacefully holding a sign and someone interfering with motorists or creating a dangerous situation.

“It’s just a small nuance between somebody who’s just standing there and holding a sign, and then somebody who’s, like, jumping in front of cars and creating a hazard,” Chaboty said.

He added that officers must be careful not to violate constitutional protections while enforcing laws designed to maintain public safety.

“If they’re jumping in front of cars, causing a hazard,” Chaboty said, police have more authority to act. He noted that someone blocking traffic could already face enforcement under existing law.

Town Supervisor Scott Mace said his primary concern was not simply that people were asking for money, but the potential danger created by distractions and pedestrians interacting with traffic.

“I think that’s my big concern, is the distractions,” Mace said. “I’m in that area, you know, half a dozen times a day, and the distractions for other drivers, then going in front of traffic, that’s really what I really want to address.”

Mace also pointed specifically to the median near McDonald’s along Route 42.

Chaboty responded that because the area involves a state highway, enforcement becomes more complicated unless the person is interfering with traffic or otherwise creating a hazard.

Mace said he had heard from residents who wanted the town to address the issue.

“I’ve been asked by many people to try to do something about this,” Mace said. “I think we need to try to do something. It’s only just a matter of time before something happens out there.”

Councilwoman Melinda Meddaugh expressed concern during the discussion over how narrowly law enforcement would have to distinguish between protected activity and prohibited conduct.

“I still think it’s the fine line,” Meddaugh said during the discussion, expressing concern about attempting to regulate the activity while remaining within constitutional limits.

That “fine line” has been an issue for municipalities across New York.

In 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down a New York law that broadly prohibited loitering for the purpose of begging in Loper v. New York City Police Department. The court determined that peaceful begging on public streets and sidewalks is protected expression under the First Amendment.

New York City later adopted narrower regulations aimed at aggressive solicitation rather than simply asking for money. Those rules focus on conduct such as blocking someone’s path, threatening or intimidating a person, unwanted physical contact and certain solicitation near banks and ATMs.

Thompson’s proposed law followed a similar approach by defining aggressive behavior rather than outlawing panhandling altogether.

But even with those distinctions written into the proposal, board members remained concerned about enforcement and the possibility of legal challenges.

Chaboty said a person challenging such a law could potentially seek help from organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union in an effort to have the ordinance invalidated.

The measure failed 3-2, with Mace and Schock voting in favor and Councilmembers Melinda Meddaugh, John Pavese and Richard Benjamin voting against it.

After the vote, Mace said he was satisfied that the board had at least addressed the concerns.

“At least we had a discussion about it, and we tried,” Mace said. “If we ignored it, that’s worse.”

For now, the proposed aggressive panhandling law will not become part of the Thompson Town Code, though existing state laws and other statutes dealing with traffic obstruction, disorderly conduct and dangerous behavior remain available to law enforcement.