Court Opinion

ID: 9580207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:13.088533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:08.597779
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, J.,
specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I join in the dissenting opinion of Gillette, J., I specially concur with the lead opinion in this respect: Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500, 849 P2d 446 (1993) (Whiffen II), held that Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, gives initiative petition circulators the right to circulate initiative petitions at the Lloyd Center. Given the holding of Whiffen II, the lead opinion in this case is correct in its holding that “it was incumbent on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the Fred Meyer ‘one-stop shopping center’ * * * was not analogous to the shopping center in Whiffen.” 316 Or at 461-62 (emphasis in original). In future cases involving prosecution of initiative petition circulators under ORS 164.245, the prosecution must ‘ ‘prove, not only that the person in charge directed the defendant to leave the premises, but also that the direction to leave the premises was lawful, i.e., that the defendant had no legal right to ignore the direction to leave.” Id. at 460 (emphasis in original).
*491I join in the dissenting opinion of Gillette, J., because initiative petition circulators have no right under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, to circulate petitions on privately owned premises such as those involved in this case and in Whiffen II.