______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 

State of California
 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN
 

Attorney General
 

OPINION : 

: No. 95-509 

of : 

: June 10, 1996 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN :
 

Attorney General :
 

:
 

MAXINE P. CUTLER :
 

Deputy Attorney General :
 

:
 

THE HONORABLE CATHIE WRIGHT, MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE 

SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions: 

1. May school administrators require members of the news media to (1) register their 

presence on campus, (2) comply with other conditions for interviewing students, observing an event, or 

examining the curriculum being taught, and (3) leave the premises if their presence would interfere 

with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school? 

2. May school administrators require written parental permission before allowing 

members of the news media to interview students? 

CONCLUSIONS 

1. School administrators may require members of the news media to (1) register their 

presence on campus, (2) comply with other conditions for interviewing students, observing an event, or 

examining the curriculum being taught, and (3) leave the premises if their presence would interfere 

with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school. 

2. School administrators may not require written parental permission before allowing 

members of the news media to interview students. 

1. 95-509
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

ANALYSIS 

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: "Congress shall 

make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ." The amendment is made applicable to the states 

through the Fourteenth Amendment. (Perumal v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District (1988) 

198 Cal.App.3d 64, 68.) California's Constitution, in provisions not dependant upon the federal 

Constitution, provides in article I, section 2, subdivision (a): "Every person may speak freely, write 

and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law 

may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press." 

With respect to the benefits of a "free press" and its right to gather news, the Supreme 

Court has observed: 

"The . . . public's right to receive and disseminate communications about public 

affairs implies at least some right to acquire relevant information at the source. It 

draws on the right to assemble in places and at proceedings traditionally public. It 

presumes the deterrent effect of public scrutiny on official misconduct. And it 

emphasizes the unique role of the media in vindicating the right to know." (San Jose 

Mercury-News v. Municipal Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 498, 502.) 

1. News Media Access To School Grounds 

The first question presented concerns whether members of the news media may enter 

without restriction school grounds, including classrooms, to interview students, observe events, or 

examine the curriculum being taught. May school administrators require them to register their 

presence on campus, impose other conditions in granting access, and deny access under certain 

conditions? We conclude that reasonable restrictions may be placed upon members of the news media 

when they seek access to school grounds. 

We first note that the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive scheme concerning 

public assess to school premises. (Pen. Code, '' 627-627.11.)1 The Legislature has declared: 

"(a) The Legislature finds the following: 

"(1) Violent crimes perpetrated on public school grounds interfere with the 

education of students and threaten the health and safety of teachers, other employees, 

and students. 

1

All references hereafter to the Penal Code are by section number only. 

2. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

"(2) Many serious crimes of violence are committed on school grounds by 

persons who are neither students nor school employees and who are not otherwise 

authorized to be present on school grounds. 

"(3) School officials and law enforcement officers, in seeking to control these 

persons, have been hindered by the lack of effective legislation restricting the access of 

unauthorized persons to school grounds and providing appropriate criminal sanctions 

for unauthorized entry. 

"(b) The Legislature declares that the purpose of this chapter is to safeguard 

the teachers, other employees, students, and property of public schools. The 

Legislature recognizes the right to visit school grounds for legitimate nonviolent 

purposes and does not intend by this enactment to interfere with the exercise of that 

right. 

"(c) The Legislature finds and declares that a disproportionate share of crimes 

committed on school campuses are committed by persons who are neither students, 

school officials, or staff, and who have no lawful business on the school grounds. 

"It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to promote the safety 

and security of the public schools by restricting and conditioning the access of 

unauthorized persons to school campuses and to thereby implement the provisions of 

Section 28 of Article 1 of the California Constitution which guarantee all students and 

staff the inalienable constitutional right to attend safe, secure, and peaceful public 

schools. It is also the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of this chapter shall 

not be construed to infringe upon the legitimate exercise of constitutionally protected 

rights of freedom of speech and expression which may be expressed though rallies, 

demonstrations, and other forms of expression which may be appropriately engaged in 

by students and nonstudents in a campus setting." (' 627.) 

It has thus provided in section 627.2: 

"No outsider shall enter or remain on school grounds during school hours 

without having registered with the principal or designee, except to proceed 

expeditiously to the office of the principal or designee for the purpose of registering. If 

signs posted in accordance with Section 627.6 restrict the entrance or route that 

outsiders may use to reach the office of the principal or designee, an outsider shall 

comply with such signs." 

Section 627.4 states: 

"(a) The principal or his or her designee may refuse to register an outsider if 

he or she has a reasonable basis for concluding that the outsider's presence or acts 

would disrupt the school, its students, its teachers, or its other employees; would result 

3. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

in damage to property; or would result in the distribution or use of unlawful or 

controlled substances. 

"(b) The principal, his or her designee, or school security officer may revoke 

an outsider's registration if he or she has a reasonable basis for concluding that the 

outsider's presence on school grounds would interfere or is interfering with the peaceful 

conduct of the activities of the school, or would disrupt or is disrupting the school, its 

students, its teachers, or its other employees." 

Section 627.7 provides: 

"(a) It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to 

exceed six months, or by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500), or by both, 

for an outsider to fail or refuse to leave the school grounds promptly after the principal, 

designee, or school security officer has requested the outsider to leave. . . . 

". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

"(b) The provisions of this section shall not be utilized to impinge upon the 

lawful exercise of constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly." 

Members of the news media, however, are specifically exempt from the requirements of this statutory 

scheme. Subdivision (a) of section 627.1 provides: 

"As used in this chapter, with regard to a public school: 

"(a) An `outsider' is any person other than: 

"(1) A student of the school; except that a student who is currently suspended 

from the school shall be deemed an outsider for purposes of this chapter. 

"(2) A parent or guardian of a student of the school. 

"(3) An officer or employee of the school district that maintains the school. 

"(4) A public employee whose employment requires him or her to be on 

school grounds, or any person who is on school grounds at the request of the school. 

"(5) A representative of a school employee organization who is engaged in 

activities related to the representation of school employees. 

"(6) An elected public official. 

"(7) A person who comes within the provisions of Section 1070 of the 

Evidence Code by virtue of his or her current employment or occupation." 

4. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Persons who come "within the provisions of Section 1070 of the Evidence Code" include: 

"(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed 

upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association 

or wire service . . . . 

"(b) . . . a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or 

employed by a radio or television station. . . ." 

Accordingly, members of the news media may not be prosecuted for violating the terms of section 

627.7 or any other provision of this statutory scheme. 

Do the provisions of sections 627-627.11 affirmatively grant members of the news 

media the authority to enter without restriction school grounds, including classrooms, to interview 

students, observe campus events, and examine the curriculum being taught? We do not so construe the 

terms of this statutory scheme. While members of the news media may not be prosecuted under this 

statutory scheme, the Legislature has not thereby authorized, either expressly or impliedly, unlimited 

and unrestricted access to school premises by news media representatives (or anyone else). School 

officials may deny access to members of the news media, as they may deny access to anyone, if their 

presence would interfere with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school.2 

First, we note that the constitutional right to gather information is not without 

limitation. "The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather 

information." (Zemel v. Rusk (1965) 381 U.S. 1, 16-17.) As noted in Miller v. National Broadcasting 

Co. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1492: 

"Newsgathering, as well as news dissemination, may be within the protective 

ambit of the First Amendment. Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) 408 U.S. 665, 681 [33 

L.Ed.2d 626, 639, 92 S.Ct. 2646], observes that `without some protection for seeking 

out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.' A series of United States 

Supreme Court decisions have upheld the right of the press and media to publish 

information contained in public records or obtained during public proceedings, as part 

of the public's right to know. (See, e.g., Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975) 420 

U.S. 469 [43 L.Ed.2d 328, 95 S.Ct. 1029].) . . . 

"Where the United States Supreme Court has addressed the problem of 

providing adequate constitutional protection for newsgathering, however, it has been 

careful to point out that the protection is limited, rather than absolute. Branzburg, for 

example, cited with approval the statement that `"[t]he publisher of a newspaper has no 

special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to 

2

A contrary conclusion would allow, for example, a student to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the 

school without being subject to dismissal. 

5. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

invade the rights and liberties of others." Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 

132-133 (1937).' (Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) 408 U.S. 665, 683 [33 L.Ed.2d 626, 

640].)" 

In Am. Civil Liberties Union v. State of Miss. (5th Cir. 1990) 911 F.2d 1066, 1071, the court observed: 

"`It has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the 

press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public 

generally. . . . Despite the fact that news gathering may be hampered, the press is 

regularly excluded from grand jury proceedings, our own conferences, the meetings of 

other official bodies gathering in executive session, and the meetings of private 

organizations. Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime 

or disaster when the general public is excluded.' Branzburg v. Hayes, [408 U.S. 665, 

684-85. 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2658-59, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972)]. Similarly, newsmen have no 

constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded to the 

general public. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 833-34, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2810, 41 

L.Ed.2d 495 (1974)." 

Second, it is to be observed that "a special relationship is formed between a school 

district and its students so as to impose an affirmative duty on the district to take all reasonable steps to 

protect its students." (Rodriquez v. Inglewood Unified Schools Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 715.) 

Teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining order in their schools. 

(Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton (1995) ___ U.S. ___ [132 L.Ed.2d 564, 574].) There is an 

"expectation and reliance of parents and students on schools and staff for safe buildings and grounds 

. . . ." (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist., supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at 714.) As stated by the 

court in Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal. 1993) 827 F.Supp. 1459, 1461: 

"It is . . . clear that daily administration of public education is committed to 

school officials and that such responsibility carries with it the inherent authority to 

prescribe and control conduct in the schools. The interest of the state is a compelling 

one and provokes a balancing of First Amendment rights with the state's efforts to 

preserve and protect its educational process. It is also well established that the First 

Amendment does not require school officials to wait until disruption actually occurs 

before they may act to curtail exercise of the right of free speech but that they have a 

duty to prevent the occurrence of disturbances." 

Under First Amendment principles, school administrators may reasonably regulate 

access to school grounds and impose conditions so as "to preserve the property under [their] control for 

the use of which it is lawfully dedicated": 

". . . We have recognized that the `First Amendment does not guarantee access 

to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.' [Citation.] 

In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for 

its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech 

is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials 

6. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

oppose the speaker's view. [Citation.] As we have stated on several occasions, 

`"`[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the 

property under its control for the use of which it is lawfully dedicated.'"' [Citations.]" 

(Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn. (1983) 460 U.S. 37, 46.) 

Pursuant to a different statutory scheme ('' 626-626.11) than analyzed above, school 

administrators are expressly authorized to request persons to leave school grounds in order to maintain 

order in the use of the school's facilities. Subdivision (a) of section 626.6 provides: 

"In any case in which a person who is not a student, officer, or employee of a . . 

. school, and who is not required by his or her employment to be on the campus . . . and 

it reasonably appears to the chief administrative officer . . . or employee designated by 

the chief administrative officer to maintain order on such campus or facility that such 

person is committing any act likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the 

activities of the campus or facility, or has entered the campus or facility for the purpose 

of committing any such act, the chief administrative officer or officer or employee 

designated by him or her to maintain order on the campus or facility may direct the 

person to leave the campus or facility . . . ."3 

Similarly, Education Code section 32211, subdivision (a) provides: 

"Any person who is not a student of the public school, a parent or guardian of a 

student of the public school, or an officer or employee of the school district maintaining 

the public school, or who is not required by his or her employment to be in a public 

building or on the grounds of the public school, and who entered any public school 

building or the grounds of any public school building, during school hours, and who is 

requested either by the principal of the public school or by the designee of the principal 

to leave a public school building or public school grounds shall promptly depart 

therefrom and shall not return for at least 48 hours. A request that a person depart 

from a public school building or public school grounds shall be made by the principal, 

or the designee of the principal, exclusively on the basis that it appears reasonable to 

the principal, or the designees of the principal to conclude that the continued presence 

of the person requested to depart would be disruptive of, or would interfere with, 

classes or other activities of the public school program."4 

3 Penal Code section 626, subdivision (a)(4) defines "school" as including "any elementary school, junior high school, 

four-year high school, senior high school, adult school or any branch thereof, opportunity school, continuation high school, 

regional occupational center, evening high school, technical school or any public right-of-way situated immediately adjacent 

to school property or any other place if a teacher and one or more students are required to be at that place in connection with 

assigned school activities." 

4 Willful disturbance of public schools is a criminal offense, as provided in Education Code section 32210: "Any 

person who willfully disturbs any public school or any public school meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be 

punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500)." 

7. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

We reject the suggestion that a media representative would be exempt from the terms of 

section 626.6 and Education Code section 32211 if he or she is "required by his or her employment" to 

be present on a school's premises. To merit exemption, the employee's work must relate to the 

functions of the school or its educational purposes; otherwise, the exemption would virtually swallow 

up the statutory prohibition. (See Grattan v. Board of School Com'rs of Baltimore City (4th Cir. 1986) 

805 F.2d 1160 ["lawful business" means activity which is related to the educational purposes of the 

public school property, such as that of a textbook salesman].) 

Finally, we note that the Legislature has directed school authorities to minimize classroom 

interruptions. Education Code section 32212 provide in part: 

"(a) The Legislature finds and declares that interruption of class time seriously 

impairs the educational process. 

"(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that each governing board of a school 

district formally address the problem of classroom interruptions and adopt a policy to 

control those interruptions, consistent with local circumstances and practices." 

Under this statutory directive, news media members may have their access to school classrooms 

controlled so that the school's educational objectives will not be seriously impaired. 

We conclude that school administrators may require members of the news media to 

follow reasonable conditions while they are on school grounds in order to prevent interference with the 

orderly educational activities of the school. These conditions may restrict the news media 

representatives in the same manner that access by members of the general public may be limited, i.e., 

requiring registration, accompaniment by a staff member while on school grounds, and denial of 

permission to enter classes that are in session. Members of the news media, as well as members of the 

general public, may be asked to leave if it reasonably appears to school officials that such persons are 

committing acts likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the school's educational activities. 

2. Parental Permission Before Media Interviews 

The second question presented concerns whether school administrators may require 

written parental permission before allowing members of the news media to interview particular 

students on campus. We conclude that prior written parental permission may not be required. 

It is now well established that students have a federal constitutional right to freedom of 

speech. A student may express his or her opinion on school premises, with certain limitations. In 

Lopez v. Tulare Joint Union High School (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1310, the court recently stated: 

"Judicial recognition of students' free speech rights came with the land-mark 

United States Supreme court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) 393 

U.S. 503 [21 L.Ed.2d 731, 89 S.Ct. 733]. The Tinker court recognized that school 

officials generally had comprehensive authority to prescribe and control conduct in the 

8. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

schools, but this authority did not extend to administrative censorship of public school 

students' nondisruptive expression. Students did not `shed their constitutional rights to 

freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.' Thus, although students' 

First Amendment rights had to be `applied in light of the special characteristics of the 

school environment,' students could not be `confined to the expression of those 

sentiments that are officially approved.' (Id. at pp. 506, 511 [21 L.Ed.2d at pp. 737, 

740].) 

"The court declared that students may exercise their rights to freedom of 

expression unless the `conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason 

-- whether it stems from time, place or type of behavior -- materially disrupts classwork 

or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others . . . .'" 

The Legislature has enacted Education Code section 48907 to protect students' rights of free speech. 

The statute provides: 

"Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of 

speech and of the press including, but not limited to, the use of bulletin boards, the 

distribution of printed materials or petitions, the wearing of buttons, badges, and other 

insignia, and the right of expression in official publications, whether or not such 

publications or other means of expression are supported financially by the school or by 

use of school facilities, except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, 

libelous, or slanderous. Also prohibited shall be material which so incites students as 

to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school 

premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of 

the orderly operation of the school. 

"Each governing board of a school district and each county board of education 

shall adopt rules and regulations in the form of a written publications code, which shall 

include reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner of conducting such 

activities within its respective jurisdiction. 

". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

"Nothing in this section shall prohibit or prevent any governing board of a 

school district from adopting otherwise valid rules and regulations relating to oral 

communication by students upon the premises of each school." 

Pursuant to the terms of Education Code section 48907, which provides greater protection for a 

student's free speech rights than the First Amendment, school officials may not impose prior restraints 

upon students except in limited circumstances not applicable here. (See Lopez v. Tulare Joint Union 

High School Dist., supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at 1317-1322.) Requiring parental permission for a student 

interview would constitute such an impermissible prior restraint. 

Education Code section 48950 additionally provides: 

9. 95-509 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

"(a) School districts operating one or more high schools and private secondary 

schools shall not make or enforce any rule subjecting any high school pupil to 

disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other 

communication that, when engaged in outside of the campus, is protected from 

governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or 

Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution. 

"(b) Any pupil enrolled in a school that has made or enforced any rule in 

violation of subdivision (a) may commence a civil action to obtain appropriate 

injunctive and declaratory relief as determined by the court. Upon motion, a court may 

award attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to this section. 

"(c) This section does not apply to any private secondary school that is 

controlled by a religious organization, to the extent that the application of this section 

would not be consistent with the religious tenets of the organization. 

"(d) Nothing in this section prohibits the imposition of discipline for 

harassment, threats, or intimidation, unless constitutionally protected. 

"(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede, or otherwise limit 

or modify, the provisions of Section 48907. 

"(f) The Legislature finds and declares that free speech rights are subject to 

reasonable time, place, and manner regulations." 

The Legislature's purpose in enacting section 48950 was explained in Lopez v. Tulare Joint Union High 

School Dist., supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at 1316: "The legislative intent was `"that a student shall have the 

same right to exercise his or her right to free speech on campus as he or she enjoys when off campus."' 

[Citation.]" Requiring prior parental permission for student interviews on campus by a news media 

representative would violate the underlying purpose of section 48950. 

A parent may, of course, instruct his or her child not to communicate with news media 

representatives. This is a matter for the exercise of parental discretion, whether the child is on or off 

school property. 

We conclude that school administrators may not require written parental permission 

before allowing members of the news media to interview students. 

* * * * * 

10. 95-509