Opinion ID: 706020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: STATE v. CARGILL

Text: 10 In Cargill, the defendants solicited signatures on sidewalks outside the entrances of a Fred Meyer store in Portland. After refusing to obey the directive of Fred Meyer to leave its property, the defendants were arrested and subsequently convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree. 11 The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed defendants' convictions, holding that Article IV, section 1 of the Oregon Constitution 1 prohibits using a criminal prosecution to prevent the people from collecting signatures on initiative and referendum petitions in areas that have replaced traditional forums for the collection of signatures, so long as there is no substantial interference with the owner's use of the property for business or other purposes. Id. 786 P.2d at 215. The court stated that [p]rosecuting defendants for criminal trespass for refusing to obey a direction [of Fred Meyer] to leave the entrance of the store under these circumstances would render inadequate the people's opportunity to function in their legislative role and would violate Article IV, section 1. Id. at 214-15. The court found that [t]he Fred Meyer store at which defendants were arrested is a modern replacement for the town square or park. It is open to the public, and citizens are invited to come and congregate on the premises. Id. at 212. Significantly, the court concluded that Fred Meyer itself had opened its property to the public: 12 Fred Meyer's invitation to the public was broad and for more than just commercial activity. Its premises, by reason of the owner's invitation, became a forum for assembly by the community. Notwithstanding the company's apparent policy against allowing petitioners on its property, there is no evidence that defendants' activities substantially interfered with Fred Meyer's commercial activity, had a serious economic impact on the company or interfered with its reasonable investment backed expectations. 13 Id. at 214.