Opinion ID: 50384
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trespassing

Text: Columbia also asserts that Plaintiffs were trespassing on February 12, 2005. Miles did state on the DVD that Plaintiffs were not welcome on either United Methodist’s property or the state’s property, indicating that he believed Plaintiffs were trespassing. To the extent Plaintiffs were standing on United Methodist’s property, Plaintiffs do not contest that they could be removed for trespassing. See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:63. The same does not hold true for the paved shoulder, however. Columbia points to no law that makes it a trespass to stand on state property next to a highway. In its opinion on Plaintiffs’ 21 preliminary injunction motion, the district court determined that the paved portion of Highway 165 was “‘the archetype of a traditional public forum.’” (05/05/05 Dist. Ct. Op. at 9) (citing Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480 (1988)). Restrictions on demonstrations on the paved shoulder are thus subject to analysis under the strict or intermediate scrutiny standards, depending on whether the restriction was content-based or content-neutral. See Frisby, 487 U.S. at 481.9 Therefore, whether Columbia’s restrictions on Plaintiffs’ demonstration were content-based or content-neutral is still a fact question.