Facts
- Harriet Louise Adderley and 31 other Florida A&M University students participated in a civil-rights-related protest at the Leon County jail in Tallahassee, Florida.
- About 200 students went to the jail to protest arrests of other students and broader segregation policies, including at the jail.
- Demonstrators assembled on county jail property, including a jail driveway not open to general public use; they sang, clapped, and danced, and the gathering blocked the driveway.
- The sheriff, as custodian of the jail and its grounds, asked the students to leave and warned they were trespassing and would be arrested if they refused.
- Some left; 107 remained and were arrested.
- Petitioners were convicted by a jury of trespass “with a malicious and mischievous intent” under Fla. Stat. § 821.18.
- Florida appellate courts affirmed; the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
- Whether petitioners’ convictions for trespass on jail grounds violated rights of speech, assembly, and petition protected through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether the Florida trespass statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the protest.
- Whether the convictions should be set aside under an abatement theory associated with later civil-rights legislation.
- Whether the record showed that the trespass statute was applied to suppress petitioners’ views rather than to protect lawful jail uses.
Decision
- The Court affirmed the convictions, 5–4 (Justice Black).
- The Court held the jail and its driveway were not public forums, and the state could limit use of that property to its lawful purposes.
- The Court found the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to refusal to leave restricted jail property after warning.
- The Court held there was sufficient evidence that petitioners remained on property reserved for jail uses after being directed to leave.
- The Court rejected abatement as inapplicable and found no evidence that arrests or convictions were based on petitioners’ message.
Legal Principles
- Government may preserve property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated, including excluding demonstrations from areas not open to public expressive use.
- A jail facility and restricted jail grounds are nonpublic property for forum purposes; limiting demonstrations there may be valid when based on lawful, nondiscriminatory reasons tied to the property’s function.
- A trespass statute targeting specific conduct is not void for vagueness when applied to persons who remain on restricted property after clear notice to leave.
- A First Amendment claim fails where the record supports enforcement based on refusal to leave restricted property, with no evidence of viewpoint-based enforcement.
Conclusion
The Court upheld trespass convictions of students who remained on a restricted jail driveway after warnings to leave, ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments did not grant a right to use nonpublic jail property for protest and that the statute’s application was clear and supported by the evidence.