On Friday, a small group of political protesters carrying signs and quietly chan

Question

On Friday, a small group of political protesters carrying signs and quietly chanting were marching back and forth the full length of the public sidewalk in front of Foods. Foods encompasses the entire block by the public sidewalk with entry and exit doors located directly in the center of the store building, and with privately owned parking in the back of the store. Sometimes the protesters were at either of the two ends of the sidewalk in front of Foods, and thus, not directly in front of the entry/exit door doors to Foods. The protesters did not walk on or enter the private parking lot owned by Foods; the protesters did not stop and congregate in front of the store or its entry/exit doors at any time. The management of Foods believed that the protestors were impeding the ingress and egress of customers into Foods end therefore interfering with business. Foods called the police to have the protesters removed.

The police did not arrest the protesters but did require them to stop marching and move away from Foods.

Assignment

A. The protesters want to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Specifically, what legal claim could the protesters sue for and why?

B. Could the protesters be convicted of trespassing against Foods? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

A. The protesters want to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Specifically, what legal claim could the protesters sue for and why?

As protesters wants to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Generally, as a protesters they can sue since all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. In addition, being as a protesters may have a right to speak in other public locations that the government has opened up for unrestricted public speech, such as plazas in front of government buildings. But in general the owners of private property can set rules for speech on that property. If they disobey the private property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply). But it has been observed that protesters have not violated the rules near Foods rather there were delusion that they are obstructing private property and their customers and latter on when Police was called they also find same that protesters have not violated the rules and after given warring and general instructions, protesters walked away from the Foods area.

B. Could the protesters be convicted of trespassing against Foods? Why or why not?

Protesters could not be convicted of trespassing against Foods because the protesters stay on the sidewalks and obey traffic and pedestrian signals, their activity were constitutionally protected even without a permit. Even protesters were giving enough space on the sidewalk for normal pedestrian traffic and where not maliciously obstructing or detaining passers-by. So they can’t be convicted of trespassing against foods rather police only gave warring to them.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse O
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.