Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Leafleting On County Property topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council tables amendment that would restrict leafleting on county parking property amid free‑speech concerns

3334950 · May 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted 6-1 to table an ordinance amendment aimed at prohibiting placing leaflets on vehicles parked on county real estate, after testimony from the acting sheriff and legal discussion about scope and First Amendment limits.

Northampton County Council voted 6-1 on May 15 to table consideration of an amendment to the county real estate rules that would prohibit placing leaflets on vehicles parked on county property.

Acting Sheriff Chris Zieger told council the proposed change responds to complaints about leaflets and flyers left on vehicles in the county parking deck that later turn into litter and create safety concerns. “What happens ultimately at the end of the day, county employees go outside, visitors go outside, the stuff turns into litter,” Zieger said.

County solicitor staff explained the amendment would target a limited mode of distribution on county real estate rather than the content of speech. David Saral of the solicitor’s office said it would apply to “county parking lots, essentially,” and that his legal research did not reveal barriers to adopting such a restriction. Council member Brown objected on First Amendment grounds, saying, “You're restricting somebody from doing free speech and leafletting is right there.” Brown moved to table the ordinance and the motion carried 6–1.

The transcript shows the solicitor framing the change as a narrowly tailored rule limiting placement of materials on parked vehicles and not a content‑based restriction. Several council members asked for follow‑up legal review. The measure was introduced at the May 1 meeting and was the subject of the public hearing on May 15; there was no recorded public testimony at the hearing on this specific amendment.

Because the council tabled the amendment, no ordinance text was adopted and no enforcement mechanism was put in place. Council members asked the solicitor and staff to confer further on constitutional implications before the item returns to the agenda.