Can private property owners ban petitioning? (Oregon SC S45547)

Have you ever been asked to leave a store while peacefully gathering signatures for a cause you care about? You're not alone; many people encounter similar challenges, but there's a notable court decision that can help clarify your rights in such situations. If you're facing this issue, the case of Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc. provides valuable insights and potential solutions, so be sure to read on carefully.

STRANAHAN v. FRED MEYER INC (2000) + Situation

Case Overview

Specific Situation

In this case, the conflict arose in Oregon, where a political activist was involved in gathering signatures for initiative petitions outside a Fred Meyer shopping center. The activist, who frequently participated in political activities, was collecting signatures to propose changes related to sales taxes and the rights of initiative petitioners. The issue began when Fred Meyer, a prominent chain of shopping centers, asserted its right to exclude the activist from its property. Despite being informed of her activities, Fred Meyer personnel directed the activist to leave, and when she refused, she was arrested for trespassing. This led to the legal dispute over whether she had the constitutional right to be on the property for her petitioning activities.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff, a dedicated political activist, argued that she had a constitutional right under the Oregon Constitution to solicit signatures for initiative petitions on Fred Meyer’s property. She claimed that her arrest for trespassing was unlawful because her actions were protected by the state’s constitutional provisions related to the initiative process. She sought damages for false arrest, asserting that the arrest not only violated her rights but also resulted in physical injuries.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant, Fred Meyer, contended that the activist did not possess any constitutional right to solicit signatures on their private property. They argued that their rights as property owners allowed them to exclude her from their premises. Fred Meyer maintained that since the activist refused to leave after being directed to do so, they were within their rights to have her arrested for trespass.

Judgment Outcome

Fred Meyer won the case. The court concluded that the activist did not have a constitutional right under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to solicit signatures on private property against the owner’s wishes. As a result, Fred Meyer was justified in having her arrested for trespassing. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, effectively dismissing the activist’s claim for false arrest.

STRANAHAN v. FRED MEYER INC (2000) + Relevant Laws

Article IV, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution

This section of the Oregon Constitution outlines the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people. Essentially, it allows citizens to propose laws and constitutional amendments and to vote on them independently of the state legislature. It describes the process for gathering signatures to qualify initiatives and referendums for the ballot. However, the court found that nothing in the text of Article IV, Section 1, explicitly grants initiative petitioners the right to solicit signatures on private property against the owner’s wishes.

ORS 164.245

ORS 164.245 defines the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree. Under this law, a person commits criminal trespass if they enter or remain unlawfully on premises. In simpler terms, if you’re on someone else’s property without permission and refuse to leave when asked, you could be charged with trespass. In this case, Fred Meyer argued that Stranahan was trespassing when she continued to gather signatures on their property after being told to leave.

ORS 164.205

ORS 164.205 offers definitions crucial for understanding trespass laws, including “enter or remain unlawfully.” According to this statute, you are unlawfully on premises if you fail to leave after being lawfully directed to do so by someone in charge. This was a key point in determining whether Stranahan’s actions constituted trespass, as Fred Meyer had directed her to leave their property, which she did not do, resulting in her arrest.

STRANAHAN v. FRED MEYER INC (2000) + Legal Standards

Principle Interpretation

Article IV, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution

Under a principle interpretation, Article IV, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution is primarily concerned with the legislative process, allowing the people to propose laws and constitutional amendments through the initiative system. It reserves the power for the people to engage directly in lawmaking, independent of the legislative assembly. The text does not explicitly grant the right to collect signatures on private property against the owner’s wishes.

ORS 164.245

ORS 164.245, which pertains to criminal trespass, states that a person commits this crime if they remain on premises after being lawfully asked to leave. The principle interpretation aligns with the idea that property owners have the right to exclude individuals who do not comply with lawful requests to vacate the premises.

ORS 164.205

ORS 164.205 defines “enter or remain unlawfully” as staying on premises after being directed to leave by the person in charge. The principle interpretation supports the property owner’s authority to enforce such directives, emphasizing the owner’s control over their property.

Exceptional Interpretation

Article IV, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution

An exceptional interpretation might consider Article IV, Section 1 as implicitly supporting broader access for petition activities to ensure the initiative process is effective. This could suggest that certain private properties, especially those open to public use, might have to accommodate signature gathering to uphold democratic processes.

ORS 164.245

Under an exceptional interpretation, ORS 164.245 could be viewed as allowing exceptions for activities protected by constitutional rights, such as petitioning, particularly in areas functionally serving as public forums, like large shopping centers.

ORS 164.205

Exceptions under ORS 164.205 may arise if the law is interpreted to accommodate constitutionally protected activities that do not substantially interfere with the property owner’s use, particularly in spaces that serve as modern public squares.

Applied Interpretation

In this case, the applied interpretation followed the principle interpretation of the laws in question. The court determined that Article IV, Section 1, does not inherently grant the right to solicit signatures on private property over the owner’s objection. The court emphasized the text’s focus on the process rather than the location of signature collection. ORS 164.245 and ORS 164.205 reinforced the property owner’s right to exclude individuals, aligning with the principle interpretation that prioritizes property rights over the petitioner’s claims in this context.

Right to Petition + Resolution Methods

STRANAHAN v. FRED MEYER INC (2000) + Resolution Method

In the case of Stranahan v. Fred Meyer Inc, the plaintiff, Stranahan, pursued a lawsuit against Fred Meyer, arguing her right to solicit signatures for an initiative petition on Fred Meyer’s private property. The court ultimately ruled against Stranahan, holding that Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution did not extend to granting permission to solicitors on private property over the owner’s objection. This outcome suggests that pursuing a lawsuit in such circumstances was not the correct resolution method for Stranahan. Given the complexity and the need to interpret constitutional provisions, a more effective approach could have been to seek a legislative change or a public campaign to raise awareness and support for broader rights of petitioners. Additionally, consulting with legal experts before proceeding could have provided clarity on the likelihood of success and potential alternative strategies.

Resolution Methods for Similar Cases

Public Mall Gathering

If a petitioner is soliciting signatures in a public mall, and the mall owner objects, the petitioner might have a stronger case given the public nature of the space. In this scenario, attempting resolution through legal action could be viable, especially with the support of legal counsel to argue the space’s public use.

Private Property with Public Access

For private properties like a grocery store with areas accessible to the public, petitioners should first attempt a dialog with the property owner to negotiate terms for signature gathering. If denied, legal action might not be favorable unless the property is similar to a town square. An alternative is to petition in truly public areas nearby.

Commercial Center with Restrictions

Petitioners in commercial centers with explicit restrictions on solicitation should pursue negotiations with property management to identify allowable areas for petitioning. If unsuccessful, pursuing a cooperative approach, such as setting up a table outside the premises in a public space, is advisable rather than legal action, which might be costly and uncertain.

Non-Commercial Private Property

On non-commercial private properties, such as residential areas, petitioners should avoid legal action to enforce access rights, as private property rights are typically upheld. Instead, focusing on community engagement and public spaces for signature gathering would be more effective and legally sound.

FAQ

What is a false arrest?

False arrest occurs when someone is held in custody without legal justification, violating their rights.

What rights do petitioners have?

Petitioners have the right to collect signatures for initiatives but may be restricted on private property.

Can private property owners refuse petitioners?

Yes, owners can refuse petitioners from soliciting on their property unless otherwise required by law.

What is Article IV, Section 1?

It outlines the initiative and referendum powers of the people in Oregon to propose and vote on legislation.

What defines criminal trespass?

Criminal trespass involves entering or remaining on property without permission after being asked to leave.

What was Whiffen II?

Whiffen II was an Oregon Supreme Court case that addressed the rights of petitioners on private property.

How does ORS 164 relate?

ORS 164 outlines laws regarding criminal trespass, including definitions and penalties in Oregon.

What is the initiative process?

The initiative process allows citizens to propose legislation or constitutional amendments for a public vote.

What is a directed verdict?

A directed verdict is a ruling by a judge, taking the decision out of the jury’s hands due to lack of legal grounds.

What are punitive damages?

Punitive damages are compensation awarded to punish the defendant for egregious conduct and deter future violations.

Child Murder Case Delayed in Oregon What happened next