Professional Documents
Culture Documents
丁o: Files
Public property that is othervise open to the public. Catron v. C句y ofSt・ Pefersbu働658
F.3d 1260 (11th cir. 2011). Cafron invoIved, htera〃a, a COnStitutionaI cha=enge to the
City’s lrespass ordinance" that authorized ce直ain city agents to exciude wamed
individuaIs from specific city land from one to two years, aS Weii as the city’s
not have unfettered rights to use ai看public p「operty under a= conditions and at aIl times.
/匂at 1266, 1267. This libe直y inte「est may be forfeited, for example by trespass for
CauSe言f due process is p「ovided. /d. at 1267. Due p「OCeSS 「equIreS nOtice and
be provided post-dep「ivation. /d・ at 1266.1 Acco「dingIy, the County must p「ovide due
t「espass.
PrOPe直y for spec棉c uses and to p「oscribe conduct that is inconsistent with those uses.
United Sfafes v. Kokhda, 497 U.S. 720, 725; 110 S.Ct. 3115, 3119; 111 L.Ed.2d 571
(1990);的fo肋Pawn & Jewe旬y /nc. v. Cify of Ho均ywood, 337 F.3d. 1275 (11th cir.
2003); /SKCON Mamら/nc. v. Mefropo〃tan Dade Coun劫F/ohda, 147 F.3d 1282 (11th
Ci「. 1998); and U.S. v. G胸eh, 920 F.2d 878 (11th cir. 1991). Govemmentownership of
PrOPerty does not automaticaiiy open that p「OPe巾y to the public fo「 a= uses. Kok肋da,
Supra, 1 10 S.Ct. at 31 19; Unifed Sfates Posta/ SeMce v. Counc〃 of GI℃enbu岬h Civic
Assns., 453 U.S. 114, 129; 101 S.Ct. 2676, 2685; 69 L,Ed.2d 517 (1981); Come〃us v,
NAACP Lega/ Defense and Educaf/onal Fund, /nc・, 473 U.S. 788; 105 S.Ct. 3439; 87
etc.), the constitutionality of restrictions on access or use are dependent upon the type
Of fo「ums existing on pubiic p「OPerty (i.e., `t「aditionai pubIic fo「ums”, “designated pubiic
forums’’, and “non-Pubiic fo田mS"), Pe仰/ Educ. Assh. v. Pelry Loca/ EducatoIS’Assh,
460 ∪.S. 37; 103 S.Ct, 948, 955; 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983); Kokinda, 110 S,Ct, at 3119,
1 The Catron Court found the St. Pete「sburg ordinance invaiid because it fa=ed to p「ovide a “p「ocedu「aI
2
A. T「aditional Public Fo「ums
fo「ums”, Whe「e First Amendment activities such as speech and exp「ession have
SPeeCh or exp「ession within traditionaI public forums must pass “strict scrutiny” by the
Courts. PeIry, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955, That means that in order to be constitutionai, the
gove「nment inte「est”, and Ieave open ample avenues for altemative exp「ession. Peny,
103 S.Ct. 948, 955. Within these paramete「s, Fi「st Amendment activities are subject to
“「easonable time, PIace and mamer restrictions’’, Which may be enforced without
Govemment prope巾y that is not a traditional pubiic forum but is intentiona=y opened up
to the pubIic for limited exp「essive purposes (for example, the Commission meeting
Pubiic forum’’. Pem/, 103 S.Ct at 955; LambさChape/ v. Ctr Mo万ches Union Free Sch.
Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993)(PubIic meeting 「OOmS are ‘’iimited pubIic forums”); Rowe v.
Cify of Cocoa, F/o万da, 358 F,3d 800 (11th ci「. 2004)(PubIic meeting 「ooms a「e “Iimited
are subject to the same analysis and 「estrictions as in traditionai pubIic forums. Pe/ry,
3
C. Non-PubIic Forums
On the other hand, County buiIdings that have not, by tradition, designation or
CuStOm, been intentiona=y opened up for unfettered Fi「st Amendment activity a「e “non-
Pub=cfo「ums". Peny, 103S.Ctat955; U.S. v, G鯨油920 F.2d 878 (11th Cir. 1991). 1n
“non-PubIic fo「ums", reStrictions on Fi「st Amendment activities are not subjec=o “strict
SCrutiny" by the cou巾S aS they are in t「aditionai or designated public forums. Rather,
rest「ictions within non-Pub=c fo「ums need onIy be “reasonabIe" in Iight of the purpose
and use of the fac掴ty (in this case, the conduct of County business), and ’Viewpoint
neutraI." Pe仰/, 103 S.Ct at 955; G胸e互920 F.2d at 884; /SKCON Mami /nc., 147
F.3d. at 1286.
County fac冊es. §1-2-82, Code of Laws and O「dinances of Charlotte County, FIorida.
丁he purpose of the O「dinance was to “maintain a safe and o「deriy environment which is
COnducive to the designated use of County property and to the e冊cient rende「ing of
activity on County p「ope巾y that interfe「es with the designated use of County property o「
the e冊cient rendering of public services”; and to protect the “liberty interest” of persons
OnIy the County Administrator, Or his/her designee, has the authority to issue
Trespass Wamings under the Ordinance. §1-2-82(C)(1). The County Administrator has
designated the Deputy County Administrator and the Assistant County Administrato「 as
4
having the authority to issue Trespass Wamings in the County Administrator’s absence.
丁he CharIotte County Sher肝s Office (“CCSO") has been designated as having the
authority to issue Trespass Wamings unde「 the O「dinan∞ Oniy in cases whe「e the
County Administrator o「 his/her designee are unavailabIe・ Any Trespass issued is fo「 a
Period of one (1) year and app=es oniy to the spec田C County property on which the
mechanism whereby a citizen who has been issued a Trespass Waming, but who
needs to come to County fac冊es to conduct Iegitimate County business, may do so for
Via a spec師c provision for appeal of a Trespass Waming. /d, §(C)(6). Spec甫ca看Iy, the
Ordinance provides for Notice, the帥ng of an appeai and a timef「ame for the appeal
P「OCeSS aS a Whole, Id. The appea=s quasi」udiciaI and hea「d by a neutraI magistrate,
Who has the authority to controI the conduct of the hearing. /d・ Acco「dingly, the
4, FaciIitv Ru!es
In addition to, and concomitant with, the Ordinance, the BOCC enacted Fac掴ty
RuIes, Which govem the conduct of citizens and pe「sons using County faciIities, the
Rules appIy to buiIdings and property owned, leased, managed or contro=ed by the
BOCC, including traditional, designated and non-Public fo「ums" /d, §(b)(5); and Fac掴ty
5
RuIes. Generaiiy speaking, the Faciiity RuIes p「ohibit unlawfui conduct and conduct
that interferes with the orde「Iy use of County fac冊es for County business purposes.3
丁he Fac帥ty Ruies aiso specify traditional pub=c forum a「eas whe「e First Amendment
activity is permitted, FaciIity Rules, aS amended, Rule 6, The Trespass Ordinance and
Fac掴ty Rules aiso p「ovide for the issuan∞ Of a Trespass Wa「ning for vioiations of the
Fac掴ty RuIes, after wa「ning. Fac掴ty Rules, Rule 15, 16. Fina看iy, the Facility RuIes are
On the County’s Website, tO enSu「e that pe「sons using County fac冊es unde「stand what
COnduct is p「Ohibited.
A. The Fac掴tv RuIes are VaIid Time. PIace and Manner Restrictions in AII
Fo「ums
The Fac掴ty Ruies ensu「e the County’s significant govemment interests are met:
that County property is reserved for its designated uses, County business is done in a
Safe, lawfuI and orderIy mamer, and pubIic services are provided e冊CientIy,
County bu皿ngs, but are ailowed in “traditionaI pub看ic forum” areas, SuCh as, “OutSide of
the entryway of any County owned buiIding, On any Pubiic sidewalk o「 public right-Of-
fo「 expressive activity”. FaciIity RuIes, aS amended, Rule 6. The onIy restriction is that
to the pubIic.’’ld. These 「estrictions are entireIy “viewpoint-neut「al” (in fact, nO mention
3 For example, RuIe 9 prohibits, “[d]is「uptive, harassing o「 unsafe behavior, including conduct which
intentiona=y interferes with empIoyees in the perfo「mance of thei「 duties or intentiona=y interfe「es with the
6
Of viewpoint is made at aII), Serve the significant govemment inte「est of maintaining
Order, and ieave open all other aitemative forms of expression, AccordingIy, they
COnStitute “reasonabie time, Piace and mamer” rest「ictions, Which are constitutiona=y
994, 1000 (4th cir. 1990) (PrOViding order and faimess to a= a significant govemment
interest),
With respect to designated public forums (e.g,, the BOCC meeting room on
Boa「d Meeting days), First Amendment protected activity is aIso a=owed, Subjec=o
rules goveming citizen conduct contained in the BOCC RuIes of Procedure. These
「uIes a「e viewpoint neut「aI (again, Viewpoint is not even mentioned in the Rules), and
incIude limiting expression to the purpose of the designated forum (e.g., County
business), P「OViding for a time limit for public input (3 minutes), and ensuring safety and
Order. These restrictions are also reasonabIe time, PIace and mamer 「estrictions within
Fina=y, at the County, nOn-Pub=c fo「ums incIude lobbies, O冊ces, WOrk areas and
a「eas not designated fo「 pubIic access. Gay Guardian Newspaper v. Ohoopee
RegionaI Lめrary System, 235 F.Supp,2d 1362, 1367 et. seq. (S.D, Ga. 2002)(Iobbies
a「e gene「a=y conside「ed ``non-PubIic fo「ums”); Se#ck v. Unifed States, 1 999 W」 778588
(N.D.川. 1999)(Iobby in federai o冊ce bu=ding a “non-Pub=c fo「um’’.) These a「eas have
never, by tradition or designation, been intentiona=y open by the County for First
7
Amendment activities, Which is enti「eiy within the discretion of the County, Come〃us,
一〇-一一一〇○○、-  ̄-  ̄ -臆  ̄ ̄二一一一二 ̄ニー ̄ ̄- ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄  ̄ -臆 臆喜一一丁 臆一一一一一
105 S.Ct. at 3477, The Faci看ity Rules, aS aPPIied to non-Pubiic forums, are both
’`reasonabIe’’(they simpIy require that visitors obey the law and not interfe「e with the
use of County p「OPerty fo「 County pu「POSeS) andくくviewpoint neut「a看” (again, Viewpoint is
not even mentioned in the RuIes). AccordingIy they are Constitutiona=y permissible,
Pelγy; 103 S.Ct at 955; G胸e互920 F.2d at 884; /SKCON M/amら/nc., 147 F.3d, at
1286.
Amendment-P「OteCted activities a「e a=owed, COnSistent with each type of forum, With
Pe「missibIe time, Place and mamer restrictions that serve significant gove「nment
interests, a「e entireiy viewpoint-neutrai and Ieave open ampIe alte「natives fo「
expressive activities. Likewise, the FaciIity RuIes do not unconstitutiona=y 「estrict First
Amendment activities within non-Pubiic forums, in that they are 「easonable and entireIy
Viewpoint neutra上
Attachments: