Winnifred Bell v. City of Winter Park, Florida, 745 F.3d 1318

Winter Park adopted Ordinance No. 2886-12, banning picketing/protesting within a 50-foot buffer of any dwelling (§62-79) and allowing residents to post "no loitering" signs that authorize police enforcement against persons who "remain" within 50 feet (§62-77).
Plaintiffs (Bell, Lightfoot, Waller) challenged §§62-79 and 62-77 as violating the First Amendment; the District Court granted the City's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint.
The City defended the ordinance as a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation aimed at protecting residential privacy and tranquility.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and analyzed §62-79 under intermediate scrutiny (Frisby framework) and §62-77 for vagueness and unbridled discretion concerns.
The court affirmed dismissal as to §62-79 (upholding its facial constitutionality) but reversed as to §62-77, holding the loitering provision facially unconstitutional because it delegates unbridled power to private citizens and grants police undefined discretion to enforce in traditional public fora.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §62-79 (50-ft ban on targeted picketing) violates the First Amendment	§62-79 unlawfully restricts targeted speech near homes	§62-79 is a content-neutral time, place, manner rule protecting residential privacy	Affirmed: §62-79 is content-neutral, serves significant interest, narrowly tailored, leaves alternatives (Frisby)
Whether §62-77 (resident-posted no-loitering signs enforceable by police in 50-ft buffer) violates the First Amendment	§62-77 vests private actors and police with unbridled discretion, risks content- and viewpoint-based suppression and is vague	City asserted the ordinance as part of the overall regulatory scheme protecting residences	Reversed: §62-77 is facially unconstitutional for granting private parties and officers unrestrained discretion and lacking objective standards

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (upheld targeted-residence picketing ban as valid time, place, and manner restriction protecting residential privacy)
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (recognized special privacy interests of the home in free speech context)
CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (explains risks of vague regulations and unbridled discretion in time, place, manner rules)
Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Atlanta Dep’t of Aviation, 322 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that officials’ unrestrained discretion to regulate First Amendment activity is facially unconstitutional)
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (state enforcement of private agreements can create state action implicating constitutional protections)
Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)