This is somewhat off-topic, as no crime is involved, but it is interesting as a matter of constitutional law.
Generally, constitutional limitations only restrain government. We look to statutes and common law to restrain individuals. The only exception in the United States Constitution is the Thirteenth Amendment.
The California Supreme Court, however, held many years ago that the California Constitution's guarantee of free speech also applies to some privately owned premises open to the public, such as shopping malls, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's authority to make such a rule. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899 (1979), affirmed sub nom. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
Given Pruneyard, would any competent lawyer advise a shopping mall client in California that it can make a rule that you cannot approach someone you do not know for the purpose of discussing something unrelated to mall business? I certainly would not. Soliciting on-the-spot payment or donation of money is different, as held in the various Hare Krishna cases, but just talking? Why did they think they could get away with that?
Well, they didn't. The Court of Appeal for the Third District struck down the Roseville Galleria's rules today in Snatchko v. Westfield LLC, C059985. The opinion is by Chief Justice nominee Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
Denny Walsh has this story in the Sacramento Bee.
Generally, constitutional limitations only restrain government. We look to statutes and common law to restrain individuals. The only exception in the United States Constitution is the Thirteenth Amendment.
The California Supreme Court, however, held many years ago that the California Constitution's guarantee of free speech also applies to some privately owned premises open to the public, such as shopping malls, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's authority to make such a rule. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899 (1979), affirmed sub nom. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
Given Pruneyard, would any competent lawyer advise a shopping mall client in California that it can make a rule that you cannot approach someone you do not know for the purpose of discussing something unrelated to mall business? I certainly would not. Soliciting on-the-spot payment or donation of money is different, as held in the various Hare Krishna cases, but just talking? Why did they think they could get away with that?
Well, they didn't. The Court of Appeal for the Third District struck down the Roseville Galleria's rules today in Snatchko v. Westfield LLC, C059985. The opinion is by Chief Justice nominee Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
Denny Walsh has this story in the Sacramento Bee.
Leave a comment