California Penal Code §647(c) — Aggressive Panhandling
PC §647(c) makes it disorderly conduct to accost other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms. The offense targets aggressive, harassing, or confrontational panhandling — passive holding of a sign is protected First Amendment activity under Young v. New York City Transit Authority (2d Cir. 1990) and its California analogs. A conviction is a misdemeanor up to 6 months in county jail.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Aggressive Panhandling Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §647(c) — Aggressive Panhandling at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §647(c) — Aggressive Panhandling |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Misdemeanor |
| Penalty | Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine |
| Controlling Case | Ulmer v. Municipal Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 263 |
| First Amendment | Passive panhandling protected — accosting required |
| Moral Turpitude | No |
| Strike | No |
| Probation | Available — up to 3 years |
| Diversion | PC §1001.95 + Mental Health Diversion (PC §1001.36) |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §647(c)?
What Is California Penal Code §647(c)?
PC §647(c) Reads:
"Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (c) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms."
— California Penal Code §647(c)
PC §647(c) criminalizes 'accosting' others in a public place for the purpose of begging. Under Ulmer v. Municipal Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 263, the statute is limited to conduct that goes beyond passive solicitation — the defendant must actually approach, confront, or accost another person. Purely passive panhandling, silent sign-holding, and passive requests are protected speech.
First Amendment Limits on §647(c)
Panhandling is protected expression. The statute is constitutional only when narrowly applied to accosting conduct — persistent following, physical blocking, aggressive demands, and threats. Los Angeles municipal panhandling ordinances have been repeatedly struck under Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) and Norton v. City of Springfield, so state §647(c) filings must be scrutinized for content-based defects.
PC §647(c) — Aggressive Panhandling
Accosting for alms in a public place. Misdemeanor up to 6 months.
LAMC 41.59 — Aggressive Solicitation
Local ordinance overlapping with §647(c). Multiple LAMC panhandling ordinances have been struck on First Amendment grounds.
Why §647(c) Matters Beyond the Sentence
§647(c) is a misdemeanor with no CIMT designation and no registration requirement. But convictions accumulate quickly for unhoused individuals and support probation violations, mental-health-court referrals, and involuntary conservatorship petitions. Rubin Law, P.C. handles §647(c) filings through the Mental Health Diversion track and CARE Court referrals where appropriate.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §647(c)
To convict under PC §647(c), the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accosting Another Person
Under Ulmer v. Municipal Court, 'accosting' means approaching, confronting, or otherwise directly engaging another person — not merely holding a sign, silently requesting, or passively soliciting.
In a Public Place or Place Open to the Public
The conduct must occur in a public place — sidewalks, parks, public transit — or in a private place open to the public (mall entrance, business parking lot).
For the Purpose of Begging or Soliciting Alms
The conduct must be for the purpose of seeking money, food, or valuables. Political speech, religious solicitation, and commercial solicitation may fall under different, more speech-protective standards.
Willful Conduct
The defendant must act willfully — knowing the conduct is directed at another person. Confused or disoriented conduct arising from severe mental illness may defeat willfulness and support Mental Health Diversion.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §647(c) Aggressive Panhandling in California
PC §647(c) penalties are structured as follows.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aggressive Panhandling — 1st Offense | PC §647(c) | Up to 6 months county jail | Yes — up to 3 years informal | No |
| §647(c) w/ Prior | PC §647(c) | Up to 6 months + stay-away orders | Yes — conditions | No |
| Diversion Track | PC §1001.95 | Case dismissed on completion | Diversion terms | No |
| Mental Health Diversion | PC §1001.36 | Case dismissed on completion of treatment | MHD treatment plan | No |
Related Enhancements & Charges
Prior Convictions
PC §667.5 / §1170.12
Prior similar convictions increase custody exposure and reduce diversion eligibility.
Gang Enhancement
PC §186.22
Gang-motivated conduct adds 1 year to a misdemeanor or 2–10 years to a felony filing.
Beyond the Sentence
- Public arrest record and criminal-history rap sheet exposure
- Employment background-check disclosure
- Housing background-check disclosure
- Immigration consequences for non-citizens (see FAQs)
- Professional licensing disclosure obligations
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §647(c) Aggressive Panhandling Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §647(c) and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
Passive Speech — First Amendment
Silent sign-holding, passive requests, and non-confrontational solicitation are protected speech. Under Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), content-based panhandling restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) / Ulmer v. Municipal Court (1976)
Not 'Accosting' Under Ulmer
Ulmer requires active approach, confrontation, or persistent following. Standing on a sidewalk with a request does not 'accost.'
Ulmer v. Municipal Court (1976)
Mental Health Diversion — PC §1001.36
Documented mental illness that materially contributed to the conduct qualifies for PC §1001.36 Mental Health Diversion — case dismissed on completion of a court-approved treatment plan. See our Mental Health Diversion page.
Judicial Diversion — PC §1001.95
First-offense §647(c) qualifies for PC §1001.95 judicial diversion. Program completion → case dismissed with no conviction.
Overbroad / Content-Based Ordinance
Many LA panhandling ordinances have been struck as content-based. Where charges are filed under a local ordinance rather than §647(c), a facial or as-applied constitutional challenge may dispose of the case.
Norton v. City of Springfield (7th Cir. 2015)
Insufficient Willfulness — Disorientation
Where severe mental illness, dementia, or acute intoxication rendered the defendant incapable of willful accosting conduct, the mens rea element fails.
PC §26 / §647(c)
CARE Court Referral
For clients with documented psychotic-spectrum conditions, CARE Court referral (Welfare & Institutions Code §5970) may divert the criminal case into a supportive court-supervised treatment plan.
WIC §5970 (CARE Act)
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §647(c) Aggressive Panhandling Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
PC §647(c) cases proceed through the following stages in Los Angeles County courts.
- 1
Step 1 — Citation / Arrest
Most §647(c) filings begin with LAPD or LASD field-issued citations or brief custody arrests. Sign, do not resist, and follow up with counsel immediately.
- 2
Step 2 — Arraignment
Local misdemeanor arraignment. Bail usually OR release with stay-away orders. Rubin Law manages appearance minimization for unhoused clients.
- 3
Step 3 — Diversion Screening
Rubin Law screens every §647(c) case for PC §1001.95 judicial diversion, PC §1001.36 Mental Health Diversion, and CARE Court referral. Documented conditions dramatically improve outcomes.
- 4
Step 4 — Motion Practice
First Amendment challenges to over-inclusive filings; Pitchess motions when officer bias is at issue; discovery motions on body-cam and 911 evidence.
- 5
Step 5 — Resolution
Diversion is the priority outcome. Where declined, plea to PC §415 disturbing the peace (no CIMT, no stigma) is often available.
- 6
Step 6 — Post-Disposition
PC §1203.4 expungement after probation. Mental Health Diversion completion results in dismissal and sealing under PC §851.91.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §647(c) Aggressive Panhandling Cases
PC §647(c) cases are filed in the courthouse serving the location of the arrest.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Aggressive Panhandling Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with aggressive panhandling and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §647(c) in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Aggressive Panhandling Cases Throughout LA County
09 — FAQs
PC §647(c) Aggressive Panhandling Questions — Los Angeles
What is 'aggressive panhandling' under PC §647(c)?
PC §647(c) prohibits 'accosting' another person in a public place for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms. Under Ulmer v. Municipal Court (1976), 'accosting' means actively approaching, confronting, or engaging another person — not merely holding a sign or making a passive request, which is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Is passive panhandling legal in California?
Yes. Silent sign-holding, non-confrontational requests, and passive solicitation are protected First Amendment speech under Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), Norton v. City of Springfield (2015), and California analogs. §647(c) reaches only accosting conduct — active approach, following, blocking, or persistent demand.
Can §647(c) be diverted?
Yes. First-offense §647(c) qualifies for PC §1001.95 judicial diversion — case dismissed on program completion. Where mental illness contributed to the conduct, PC §1001.36 Mental Health Diversion is often the better track, resulting in dismissal after court-supervised treatment.
Is §647(c) a crime of moral turpitude?
No. PC §647(c) is not a crime of moral turpitude under prevailing immigration authority. It is a public-order offense with no dishonesty element. Non-citizens facing §647(c) generally do not incur CIMT deportation exposure from a §647(c) conviction alone.
What if I was panhandling because of mental illness?
Documented mental illness that materially contributed to the conduct qualifies for PC §1001.36 Mental Health Diversion — the criminal case is diverted into a court-supervised treatment plan and dismissed on completion. Rubin Law, P.C. also pursues CARE Court referrals under WIC §5970 for psychotic-spectrum clients.
Can I be charged with §647(c) for holding a sign at a freeway offramp?
Passive sign-holding is protected speech. §647(c) requires 'accosting' — active engagement. However, freeway right-of-way ordinances (Vehicle Code and local) may apply separately. If the citation is under a local ordinance, First Amendment content-neutrality analysis is critical.
What happens after a §647(c) conviction?
A §647(c) misdemeanor conviction appears on Live Scan and background checks but does not require registration. PC §1203.4 expungement is available after successful probation, and diversion outcomes (§1001.95 or §1001.36) result in NO conviction to appear.
Does my §647(c) charge require me to appear in court in person?
Generally, yes — misdemeanors require personal appearance at arraignment unless counsel appears under PC §977. Rubin Law appears on behalf of misdemeanor clients under §977 in most §647(c) cases, minimizing court exposure especially for clients with mental-health or housing challenges.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged With PC §647(c) Aggressive Panhandling?
Passive panhandling is protected First Amendment speech. Rubin Law, P.C. pursues §1001.95 diversion, Mental Health Diversion, and CARE Court referrals.