As we head into another election cycle, several CGA members have asked about their rights with respect to unwanted signature gatherers and other solicitors.
Weve heard many stories about belligerent signature gatherers who insist theyre exercising their constitutional rights; and about local law enforcement agencies that are unaware of the recent Supreme Court rulings in favor of grocers on this subject.
About forty years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that speech and petitioning, if reasonably exercised, in areas outside privately-owned shopping centers is constitutionally protected.
In Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910 (Pruneyard), high school students disseminated information in a courtyard inside the Pruneyard Center, which was approximately 21 acres in total and contained 65 shops, 10 restaurants, and a theater.
According to the Court, these students had a constitutional right to be present on Pruneyard Shopping Centers private property because the shopping center was essentially a place for citizens to socialize and congregate in constitutional terms, it was a public forum.
Not all private shopping centers are a public forum, however. Indeed, the Pruneyard Court cautioned that signature gatherers and solicitors do not have free rein to express themselves at private shopping centers. So the main question becomes: when is a store considered not a public forum?
Whether a private shopping center is a public forum largely depends on the nature and characteristics of each individual store or shopping center. A shopping centers common areas, those which generally have seating and other amenities producing an environment that encourages shoppers to stop, relax, linger, gather, and chat is more likely to be viewed as a public forum.
But when a storefront is not designed to promote gathering and relaxing, such as the entrance area or the apron, the store is less likely to be viewed as a public forum.
The California Supreme Court recently highlighted the public forum analysis in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1083 (UFCW).
Union members gathered directly in front of a Foods Co. store to picket, and apparently to dissuade shoppers from entering the store. Unlike Pruneyard, the Court decided that the area immediately outside Foods Co.s customer entrances and exits, at least as typically configured and furnished, is not a traditional public forum. The union activity interfered with normal business operations more than it would have in the less heavily trafficked common areas of a public forum.
Ultimately, it was determined that the area directly outside Foods Co. did not encourage activities such as meeting friends, congregating, or lingering. Similarly, in Albertsons, Inc. v. Young (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 106 and Van v. Target Corp. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1375, the stores also successfully argued that their storefronts were not a public forum for expressive activity because the premises of each store was not designed to draw crowds like a traditional public forum.
As a first step to removing unwanted trespassers, stores should first evaluate their premises to determine if it is indeed a public forum.
Some factors to consider: are there seats, restaurants, walkways or common areas that encourage the public to gather like in Pruneyard? Or, are the premises simply intended for shoppers to enter and exit the stores or for customers to view a stores merchandise and advertising displays similar to the Ralphs v. UFCW case?
This analysis is highly factual, but the bottom line is: if the area encourages members of the public to meet friends, eat, rest, congregate or be entertained, the more likely it will be viewed as a public forum for signature gatherers and solicitors to exercise their freedom of speech.
After conducting the public forum analysis, another consideration is whether the signature gatherers and solicitors are engaged in union activities. In the UFCW case, the California Supreme Court ruled that while union members did not have a constitutional right to be at Foods Co.s entrance area and apron, the union members might have a statutory right to be present under the Moscone Act and Labor Code section 1138.1. Stores should thus also consider whether the signature gatherers and solicitors are engaging in union activities before seeking to evict them.
If the premises is not a public forum and there are no union activities involved, then stores may ask the trespassers to vacate the premises. As a practical matter, stores should review their leases to make sure they have authority and control over the apron and parking lot.
Many store leases place responsibility for maintenance and control of these spaces on the tenant grocer while some leases reserve this authority to the landlord. In the latter case, the store may need to ask the landlord for assistance in removing the unwanted trespassers.
If the signature gatherers and solicitors do not leave the premises, the store has options, including: The store may seek help from the local authorities, explaining that the stores premises are not considered a public forum.
We encourage store operators to meet in advance of a trespassing issue with the local police chief or sheriff to discuss their understanding of the law in this area, and their willingness to assist in the removal of trespassers.
CGA may be able to assist with the educational effort if your local law enforcement agency exhibits a lack of understanding of the law on solicitors and signature gatherers in front of stores.
Another option available to retailers is to sue for trespass and seek an injunction to prevent the trespassers from entering the stores private property.
When a store seeks injunctive relief against the trespassers, it would not be surprising if the trespassers filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the stores complaint. An anti-SLAPP motion is a special motion designed to dismiss claims interfering with protected speech.
This is exactly what happened in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245. In this case, Food-4-Less and Ralphs filed a lawsuit to enjoin trespassing signature gatherers from operating in front of their stores. The trespassers filed an anti-SLAPP motion, contending that that their signature gathering was a constitutionally protected activity.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Ralphs that the signature gathering was not a protected activity because the stores were open to the public to buy goods, not to offer their property as a traditional public forum.
The main takeaway is that signature gatherers and solicitors do not have free rein to use store property as a public forum. First, stores must evaluate whether their premises are a public forum. If not a public forum, then second, determine whether the solicitors are engaging in union activities that may give them special statutory permission to be present.
And finally, if the store is not a public forum and there are no union activities involved, stores should know that there are remedies available to remove unwanted, trespassing signature gatherers and solicitors from their premises.
This article appeared in California Grocer, Issue 1 (2020) and is republished with permission. California Grocers Association.
- Students quit free speech campaign over role of Toby Young-founded group - The Guardian - January 9th, 2021
- Houston congressman confronted while flying back from D.C. - KHOU.com - January 9th, 2021
- Heartland/Rasmussen Polls on the Great Reset, Socialism, and Free Speech - The Heartland Institute - January 5th, 2021
- Freedom of speech falling victim to PC intimidation - Queensland Times - January 1st, 2021
- First Amendment issues won't go away in 2021 - Sunbury Daily Item - January 1st, 2021
- Kathleen Stock: Professor made OBE calls Stonewall threat to free speech - PinkNews - January 1st, 2021
- Brooks: The Sidney Awards - The Register-Guard - January 1st, 2021
- Know the difference between facts and opinions - Gasconade County Republican - January 1st, 2021
- Forget Balloons and Follow South Korean Politics Properly - Foreign Policy - January 1st, 2021
- DeWine signs bill that protects students' free speech - The Highland County Press - December 26th, 2020
- Putin, Charlie Hebdo, and Free Speech - The National Interest - December 26th, 2020
- Is Freedom Of Speech In Danger In Taiwan? The CTi Ruling From A Legal Standpoint - The Taiwan Times - December 26th, 2020
- Poland threatens hefty fines for social media companies that censor legal speech, users everywhere celebrate - RT - December 26th, 2020
- Year-ender 2020: From access to internet and free speech to land acquisition, a look at 5 key verdicts by Supreme Court - Jagran English - December 26th, 2020
- Americans treasure freedom of speech but not to harm others - Minot Daily News - December 19th, 2020
- Right to free speech will be respected in any hate crime law - Law Society of Ireland Gazette - December 19th, 2020
- Ronnie Kasrils | Against the witch hunt and in defence of free speech - News24 - December 19th, 2020
- Hate Crime Bill: SNP is being taught a lesson about the value of free speech Murdo Fraser MSP - The Scotsman - December 19th, 2020
- Report: 88% of universities restrict expression, nearly half restrict online speech - Washington Examiner - December 19th, 2020
- The Freedom Babbleon, an Online Event Celebrating Freedom and Free Speech to Take Place This Saturday - PR.com - December 19th, 2020
- Cambridge may have won the battle for free speech - but this war is far from over - Telegraph.co.uk - December 19th, 2020
- Section 230 and the Whole Internet | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute - December 19th, 2020
- Hollis: Will Joe Biden have a 'Catholic problem'? - The Winchester Star - December 19th, 2020
- Republican members of Oversight and Reform Commission demand emergency hearing about online censorship - NorthcentralPa.com - December 19th, 2020
- The Soapbox: The unraveling of the American media corporation - The Cross Timbers Gazette - December 19th, 2020
- The Julie Burchill Affair: why mocking Islam is not hate speech - TheArticle - December 19th, 2020
- Free speech stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion: Shanmugam - The Straits Times - November 29th, 2020
- Scotland pledges to review the hate crime law to ensure freedom of speech - Evangelical Focus - November 29th, 2020
- Britain needs to take a lesson from the US in protecting free speech - Telegraph.co.uk - November 29th, 2020
- WARD: Tolerance is a two-way street - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily - November 29th, 2020
- Should Teachers Be Allowed to Wear Political Symbols? - The New York Times - November 29th, 2020
- 'The Short Life And Curious Death Of Free Speech In America' Examines The First Amendment - NPR - October 29th, 2020
- First Amendment Childrens Book Teaches a New Generation About Freedom of Speech - New Times Broward-Palm Beach - October 29th, 2020
- This is my freedom of speech - Newnan Times-Herald - August 26th, 2020
- BOOK REVIEW: Yes, I Can Say That is Judy Golds take on freedom of speech - Wicked Local Truro - August 26th, 2020
- KSL Investigates: Does armed protest have a chilling effect on free speech? - KSL.com - August 26th, 2020
- Free Speech Be Damned: Joshua Krook and the Australian Public Service - International Policy Digest - August 26th, 2020
- 'Freedom of Speech': Delhi Riots' Writer Was Lawyer for Petitioners Who Sought Cuts in Wendy Doniger Book - The Wire - August 26th, 2020
- Facebook Plans Legal Action After Thailand Tells It to Mute Critics - The New York Times - August 26th, 2020
- What Americans have to say about cancel culture - YouGov US - August 26th, 2020
- British think tank fronts right-wing academic freedom campaignPart 2 - WSWS - August 26th, 2020
- Gov. Evers condemns Kenosha violence after two nights of rioting - Ashland Daily Press - August 26th, 2020
- Austin Tong Has Done Nothing Wrong - The Observer - Fordham Observer - August 26th, 2020
- Lafayette police shooting: Mayor says 'I recognize the pain' the killing of Black man caused - Daily Advertiser - August 26th, 2020
- Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Beaumont Enterprise - July 21st, 2020
- Watch | Can states ban the display of the Confederate flag? in 'Legally Speaking' - WKYC.com - July 21st, 2020
- The US Army's Twitch bans may violate the First Amendment - PC Gamer - July 21st, 2020
- 'Disillusionment With Leadership is About Free Speech, Can't Disqualify for it': Sachin Pilot's Amended H... - News18 - July 21st, 2020
- Freedom of speech is under threat like never before and we must fight back, LEO McKINSTRY - Express - July 21st, 2020
- Assault on rights to free speech, dissent: 99 ex-IAS, IPS, IFS officers say in open letter - ThePrint - July 5th, 2020
- Freedom of expression is under threat in Lebanon - Middle East Monitor - July 5th, 2020
- No masks allowed: stores turn customers away in US culture war - The Guardian - May 24th, 2020
- Vaccination and coronavirus: Public good clashes with choice, freedom - UPI News - May 24th, 2020
- Have We Weaponized Virtue? - lareviewofbooks - May 24th, 2020
- Hate Speech and the New Tyranny over the Mind - Heritage.org - May 24th, 2020
- [ANALYSIS] The right to call the government crazy - Rappler - May 24th, 2020
- How a 20-year-old student put the spotlight on Australian universities' cosy relationship with China - The Guardian - May 24th, 2020
- Freedom of Speech Is Under the Gun as the Virus Spreads in Russia - The Nation - May 11th, 2020
- Divorcing Parents Have a Right to Post Their Stories Online, Court Says - The New York Times - May 11th, 2020
- Gov. Whitmer becomes target of dozens of threats on private Facebook groups ahead of armed rally in Lansing - Detroit Metro Times - May 11th, 2020
- Readers' Letters: 'Hate bill an attack on free speech and could affect football and comedy' - Evening Telegraph - May 11th, 2020
- Big TCPA Supreme Court Oral Argument Complete: Here Are the Top 10 Things You Need to Know About the Barr v. AAPC TCPA Review Right Now -... - May 11th, 2020
- Assange's US Extradition, Threat to Future of the Internet and Democracy - CounterPunch - May 11th, 2020
- Readers React: Are the reopen protests about free speech or presidential politics? - The San Diego Union-Tribune - May 6th, 2020
- The SNPs war on free speech - Spiked - May 6th, 2020
- The best political reads to keep on your bookshelf - Spectator.co.uk - May 6th, 2020
- A Contrarian's View of the Uses, and Abuses, of Free Speech - Jewish Week - April 9th, 2020
- U of I protests of the 1960s - Illinois Times - April 9th, 2020
- China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech - The Daily Wire - April 9th, 2020
- A Zionist attack on free speech - Redress Information & Analysis - April 9th, 2020
- How the Chinese Government Undermined the Chinese People's Attempts to Prevent and Respond to COVID-19 - Heritage.org - April 9th, 2020
- ACLJ to File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pro-Life Speech Case Battling the Abortion Distortion - American Center for Law and Justice - April 9th, 2020
- The Right Constitutional Philosophy for This Moment - The Atlantic - March 31st, 2020
- Lebanese Activists Fear Hezbollah-led Government Is Using Coronavirus to Solidify Power - VOA News - March 31st, 2020
- Improving decision-making in the face of growing misinformation - Ecofin Agency: Economic information from Africa - March 31st, 2020
- Ming Pao row: If we learn anything from the virus outbreak, it should be the importance of free speech - Hong Kong Free Press - March 31st, 2020
- Freedom of speech 'is the property of the left of politics' - Sky News Australia - March 31st, 2020
- No one is safe from the puritanical poison of wokeness says SIR JOHN HAYES - Express - March 31st, 2020
- ASG introduces three resolutions, votes on advocacy committee - The Daily Northwestern - March 5th, 2020
- Why Toby Young and other robust white men are using free speech to whip universities - The Guardian - March 5th, 2020