04/02/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(e , decision in Municipal Court which though legally appropriate, many people felt was an inappropriate decision from a policy standpoint. This case involved successful prosecution of an individual who was making unauthor- ized use of a portion of Valley River Center. Consequently, some members of the council asked the attorney's office to look at the role of the local police force in these instances and an amendment to the trespass ordinance. Certain people felt that certain large shopping centers are equivalent to downtown areas such as Eugene's mall, where daily activities involving the First Amendment flourish. An amendment has been developed that modifies the trespass ordinance so that the Eugene Police Department, Eugene Municipal Court, and the City Prosecutor's office would not be used to enforce the City ordinance against individuals who violate private property rights in the shopping center context by First Amendment activi- ties except in certain cases. The ordinance makes it a defense to the trespass charge to be present at a shopping center of a certain size that does not have an area set aside for First Amendment activities. This creates an inducement for shopping centers to set aside an area for First Amendment activities if they wish to use the Eugene police force, Muni- cipal Court, or the City Prosecutor's services. This ordinance is a policy question, not a legal requirement. This matter is within the legislative discretion of the council in that it specifies in what form the City's resources should be used. The ordinance defines a shopping center mall as an enclosed area greater than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. The free-speech area is one percent of the gross floor area. The ordinance provides a defense against the trespass charge if the mall has no free-speech area. This ordinance does not change or affect activ- ities which are determined to be illegal under State, criminal, or civil law--only under the City's trespass ordinance. ce Mr. Haws asked if the following summary is correct: If a person owns a shopping center mall of 10,000 square feet or more, and this owner wants to use the resources of City courts and police, a free-speech area must be designated or the owner would need to resort to another jurisdiction. Mr. Long indicated that this is accurate. Ms. Smith asked if this required shopping center owners to designate a free-speech area. Mr. Long responded that it did not. Ms. Smith asked when the police would intervene if there was no designated free-speech area. Mr. Long responded that, if it is a violation of Federal or State law, the City could still be asked to respond. In Municipal Court, there would not be prosecution arising out of a shopping center trespass unless in that area there was a designated free-speech area and the violation occurred outside of that area. Mr. Haws asked if a trespasser or a business owner has the choice of which jurisdictional system would be used. Mr. Long responded that the property owner could use any remedy other than City Code. In the usual trespass situation, he explained, there is a disturbance, police are summoned, and the owner directs the trespasser to leave. Under the present ordinance, the police then arrest, cite, or physically remove the alleged trespasser for violating the City Code. Under this amended ordinance, when someone declines to leave; since this will be an obvious, clear defense, an arrest will probably not ensure. The police would walk away, leaving the business owner to seek other remedies. (, ~ 4/2/80--9