Government restrictions on the use of property
I- Right to exclude- Courts normally balance the private right of use of property with the public’s rights- free speech; right to access etc..
State v. Shack- migrant workers do have rights on the property if they live there- isolated need access to essential supplies
– Hierachy of rights- Man can’t use property to harm anyone- Free speech outweighs any property right.
– Migrants have right to communication- if they are isolated and cannot communicate- violation of right
Desnick- A person who opens land to the public for business or such cannot exclude…
– Undercover reporters- no fraud- acted like any other customer. Did not film private convos
Green Party v. Hartz Mountain- Governments cannot put unreasonable burdens on free speech
– Δ- but Im a mall its totally private property
– Court- the mall is now the center of our meeting world- it has become the virtual downtown in our country- exchange of goods and ideas
– The mall did this purposely and must allow free speech
– Schmid test of property use- 1- normal use 2- invite to pub. 3- nature of expression
– Unreasonable restraint on free speech- having the Green party 1) pay for insurance 2) sign a hold harmless clause 3)- limit one day a year
– Unreasonable because the group isn’t known to be dangerous; they are financially challenged and must meet with day to day world of politics
– Constitution doesn’t extend these rights.. HOWEVER state constitutions can (as long as not restarting)
Lloyd v. Tanner- Similar circumstance- mall kicks off leafletters
– Court- although the shop has public sidewalks it is still private business; NOT a public business district
– Marsh- involved a company town- had every aspect of a public place- NOT here though-
– This rule violates taking- establishes class of individuals and doesn’t compensate
– Individual vs. Group- Individual wins here
Bennis- seize property of innocent because husbands a sleaze?
– Yes- long policy of forfeiture if property is a public nuisance
– Concurrent owners give implied consent to use car- she didn’t have to know
– Judge has discretion- could have gave her payment (TOO Minimal)
Pierson v. Post- Foxy- is pursuit possession?
-Court- No must have it in hand or at least mortally wound the fox
– Dissent- maybe we should let the experts decide
Popov- Barry Bonds ball- would have possession without interference from “bandits”
– But the other guy deserves as well
Split the profits