GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday, Aug. 14, affirmed that a state law criminalizing peaceful panhandling is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker in Grand Rapids earlier ruled that the law violated the First Amendment.

“This decision reaffirms the principle that our Constitution applies equally to everyone, whether poor or rich,” said Miriam Aukerman, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney.

“Jail time is a harsh price to pay for holding up a sign or simply asking for spare change.”

ACLU of Michigan contended that “the state’s anti-begging law is unconstitutional because peaceful panhandling – like requests for charity by nonprofits, sport teams, or the Salvation Army -- is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

Related: Peaceful begging is protected speech, federal judge in Grand Rapids rules

State Attorney General Bill Schuette appealed Jonker’s ruling that the state law violated the First Amendment. The city and state had concerns about safety, pedestrian and vehicle traffic, protection of businesses and tourism, as well as fraud.

The appellate court determined that begging is a form of solicitation protected by the First Amendment. The anti-begging law is invalid “because it prohibits a substantial amount of solicitation, an activity that the First Amendment protects, but allows other solicitation based on content,” Justice Boyce Martin Jr. wrote in a 17-page rulilng.

The ACLU said Grand Rapids enforced the state law 399 times between Jan. 1, 2008, and May 24, 2011.

James Speet and Ernest Sims were among those arrested. They filed the original lawsuit. Speet held a sign, while Sims asked for spare change.

Jonker, whose ruling was upheld, said earlier: “Begging plainly conveys a message: it communicates, whether verbally or non-verbally, a request for financial or material assistance.

“A beggar’s message is analogous to other charitable solicitation: in both situations, the speaker is soliciting financial assistance, the beggar for him or herself, and the charitable fund-raiser for a third party. Courts have held repeatedly that charitable solicitations are a form of protected speech.”

The appeals court said it has long held that the First Amendment protects charitable solicitation.

“Thus, the First Amendment protects charitable solicitation performed by organizations,” the appeals court said.

“But does the First Amendment protect the solicitation of alms when performed by an individual not affiliated with a group? We hold that it does.”

Other circuits have also held that begging is a form of solicitation protected by the First Amendment.

The appeals court said that striking down the law was “appropriate because the risk exists, that, if left on the books, the statute would chill a substantial amount of activity protected by the First Amendment.”

It noted that Grand Rapids police produced 409 incident reports related to begging. Thirty-eight percent of those stopped by police were holding signs, requesting help, with messages such as “Homeless and Hungry: Need Work.”

The others involved verbal solicitations. In 43 percent of those cases, police immediately arrested beggars.

In 211 cases, those convicted were sentenced directly to jail time.

The state argued that it has an interest in preventing fraud. Schuette said not all who beg are “homeless and destitute,” or use the funds to meet basic needs. Rather, they often spend money on alcohol.

The state provided an affidavit from an executive director of a local agency that works with the homeless who wrote that “the great majority of people panhandling for money are using the money for alcohol and drugs.”

They also display signs saying they're homeless when they're not.

"We agree with Attorney General Schuette that the prevention of fraud and duress are substantial state interests," the appeals court said.

But, “Michigan’s interest in preventing fraud can be better served by a statute that, instead of directly prohibiting begging, is more narrowly tailored to the specific conduct, such as fraud, that Michigan seeks to prohibit.”

The appeals court said the state could regulate begging.

“As the Supreme Court has said, ‘Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regualation.’ But Michigan must regulate begging ‘with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political or social issues.’”

John Agar covers crime for MLive/Grand Rapids Press E-mail John Agar: jagar@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/ReporterJAgar