Question
I’ve read up on Robins v. Pruneyard and Young v. Albertsons regarding restrictions that may or may not apply to the collection of petition signatures. With respect, especially, to the Albertsons decision, are their any other rulings regarding whether shopping centers and/or individual stores can discriminate based on content? Two
situations come to mind:
1. The Girl Scouts, Salvation Army at Christmas, local PTA, etc. are allowed to solicit customers coming and going but the center or business tries to prevent petition gatherers.
2. The store allows signature gatherers for statewide initiatives but then tries to prohibit signature gatherers for local municipal referendum, recall, or initiative measures.
Last, I’ve heard something about a 15′ limit — Businesses may force signature gatherers to stay at least 15′ from the door. Any truth to this, either in statute or a court decision re: “reasonable regulation”?
Answer
The general rule is that, if a shopping center falls under Pruneyard and must allow petitioning and related activity, the center cannot discriminate on the basis of content. If a center allows some charitable groups to solicit donations, but then denies petitioning activity, that can be considered content discrimination. See Wolin v. Port of New York Authority, 392 F.2d 83, 87 & n.4 (2d Cir. 1968) (Port Authority could not allow charitable groups to solicit funds in bus terminal but deny access to petitioners on ground political speech was controversial). Thus, while a shopping center (even one subject to Pruneyard) may refuse to allow any groups to solicit funds, it must be consistent so the “ban applies alike to all religious, political, charitable and civic groups.” International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, 691 F.2d 155, 159 (3d Cir. 1982), citied in H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government, 193 Cal. App. 3d 1193, 1220-21 (1987) (allowing shopping center subject to Pruneyard to ban monetary solicitation as a reasonable time, place and manner regulation).
As for the 15-foot rule, we are not aware of a case specifically addressing such a rule, but the California courts have held that petitioners can be prohibited “from areas normally subject to congestion and ” ‘can be excluded entirely from areas where their presence would threaten personal danger or block the flow of . . . traffic, such as doorways and loading areas.'” Union of Needletrades v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. App. 4th 996, 1009-10 (1997) (quoting H-CHH). Depending on the layout of the center at issue, a 15-foot rule may very well be considered a reasonable time, place and manner regulation to prevent congestion of the entrance and exit, as long as the restriction is contained in written time, place and manner regulations and is consistently applied.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.