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 centre 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.

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

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

Explanation / Answer

In US when a protest is carried on in Sidewalks a permit is requireed, but there are exceptions to this. Permits for protests on sidewalks are not required when the protestors choose to stay on the sidewalk by obeying the signals and the traffic rules. When the protestors engage in this kind of an activity their actions are protected by the constitution even without a permit. The only condition when the police officers are allowed to take actions on the protestors are when they notice protestors maliiously involving in harming the passer-by or when they disturb the traffic or when they dont allow space for pedestrians on sidewalks.

All the above condition are ruled out in the given case, where the protestors seem to engage in quiet protest. The protestors can sue them for not allowing to express their opinion freely in spite of not disturbing the public or any body near them.

Hence the protestors can sue the city for violating their Constitutional rights with respect to :

The rules for all the above are laid out in the First Amendment which clearly lays the details with respect to the freedom that each individual can enjoy whille giving a speech or have a get-together.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse O
• Subjects

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