Opinion ID: 1135610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions

Text: Plaintiff Lloyd Corporation contends that persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions inside its shopping mall have no right to be there in the first place, with the result that plaintiff is entitled to an injunction which would prohibit such activity, both because such persons have no right to be there under either Article I, section 8, or Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, and because: The uncontradicted evidence is that petitioning substantially interferes with the commercial enterprise of the Lloyd Center. We disagree. For the reasons previously stated, persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions have a right to enter the common areas of the Lloyd Center for that purpose under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. We reject plaintiff's contentions that such persons have no right to do so because such activity substantially interferes with its commercial enterprise. The effect of that contention would be a total ban on such protected activity. In Whiffen I, supra, 307 Or. at 687, 773 P.2d 1294, this court held that: [P]laintiff is not entitled to an injunction to prohibit peaceful solicitation of signatures in the mall or on its walkways that does not substantially interfere with the commercial activity on the premises. The solicitation of signatures of patrons does not in and of itself constitute substantial interference. We next turn to a consideration of the rules adopted by the Lloyd Corporation, most of which were approved by the trial court as provisions of its injunction. Because both parties agree that defendants' right to gather signatures in the common areas of the Lloyd Center are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, we need not consider the legal basis in case law of that rule. Defendants contend that five of the seventeen rules adopted by the Lloyd Corporation, and included in the terms of the trial court injunction, are unreasonable in that they virtually eliminate petitioning, without significantly advancing legitimate interests of [Lloyd Center]. We thus consider the objections to each of those rules. 1. Rule 4Restricting Petitioning to Three Designated Areas [4] Defendants object to the provisions of Rule 4, which would limit petitioning to three designated areas in the Mall level, contending that the petitioners should be permitted to venture out into the general population, in the common area, in order to approach their fellow citizens. In defense of that rule, plaintiff offered testimony to support its contentions that the Lloyd Center is designed to allow people to window shop and must be conducive to impulse buying and opportunities for shoppers to look at small shops without interference; that impulse buying is a key element in the success of a shopping center; that what defendants demand is the unfettered right to roam throughout the Lloyd Center without restriction; and that this would substantially interfere with its commercial enterprise and that of its tenants. Defendants offered no convincing evidence to the contrary. We agree with those contentions by plaintiff and find that Rule 4, which restricts petitioning to three designated areas, is not an unreasonable restriction on defendants' right to gather signatures for initiative petitions. 2. Rules 1 and 2Requiring Advance Notice [5] In substance, Rules 1 and 2 provide that at least 24 hours before a person may engage in petitioning, that person must file a written notice with the Lloyd Center office of intent to do so, stating the name and address of such person and the dates and times that each petitioner will be petitioning. The general manager of Lloyd Center, Larry Troyer, testified that the 24-hour notice requirement was needed so that we know who [the petitioners] are and when they're going to be there, so as to prevent contradictory groups [from] petitioning in the same area. Troyer also testified that advance warning assists Lloyd Center management in determining staffing needs. He stated that individuals seeking to gather signatures cannot give the required 24-hour notice over the telephone but must [c]ome in to our receptionist and fill out an application. The record shows, however, that at least some individuals are deterred from participating in signature-gathering activity by the requirement that they submit a 24-hour written notice to Lloyd Center. In addition, the fact that individuals who seek signatures in support of contradictory political initiatives might do so in the same area of Lloyd Center does not necessarily mean that they will cause, as Troyer testified, more disruption. After examination of the record, we conclude that the 24-hour notice requirement unduly restricts defendants' signature-gathering activity. Nothing in this record persuades us that such disruption is inherently likely. In the event that such disruption does occur or is threatened, plaintiff may seek relief in court. 3. Rule 5Providing that no more than two persons for each petition may gather signatures at one time in the Center and no more than one person for each petition shall be in any one designated petitioning area [6] We conclude that the trial court's restrictions on the number of individuals who may be involved in soliciting signatures for any particular petition at any one time is too restrictive, given the importance of the interest involved. We find nothing in this record to justify quantifying the number of people who may be involved at any one time. If future experience demonstrates a need for some restrictions, plaintiff will be free to apply for relief in court. 4. Rule 15Not allowing petitioning during specified time periods [7] We also conclude that this rule is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on defendants' right to gather signatures for initiative petitions. Total bans on petitioning activity at specific times are unreasonable per se, unless plaintiff can show that the interference is so substantial as to place an unreasonable burden on Lloyd Center. Plaintiff's evidence here does not show that.