not paying to clean up after leafleteers, supports the public perception of partisan neutrality, and prevents disruptions to the flow of traffic. (Doc. 86 at 12). Defendants have failed, however, to identify evidence in the record that the restriction, as applied to Plaintiff, “reasonably fulfills a legitimate need.” Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 967. First, Defendants have provided no evidence that Plaintiffs leafleting activities— or anyone else’s leafleting activities for that matter — are likely to cause extra clean up for the County. Moreover, even if leafleting would create extra clean-up costs for the County, a mere increase in cleaning costs is not a reasonable grounds on which to restrict leafleting. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143, 63 S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943) (<HOLDING>). Nor does the record show that there is a risk
holding that lack of standing cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time by an appellate court on its own motion holding that florida law dictates that credit cannot be given for time served on community control holding duty on imports withdrawn from bonded warehouses must be assessed on the basis of weight at the time of original entry not as previously provided for at time of withdrawal holding that the right to distribute literature cannot be withdrawn based on the minor nuisance for a community of cleaning litter from its streets holding that credit cannot be awarded for time served on community control