NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
|
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Shopping Mall Solicitors |
SB |
140/aSF#1 |
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Chavez |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Economic
Development Department (EDD)
Attorney
General’s Office (AG)
LFC
Files
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of SFl Amendments
Senate Floor Amendment #1 strikes the word
“oral” in reference to communication in addition to inserting the following
language on page two : “Buildings that
are not clearly defined malls, but are single-business entities are excluded
from these provisions.”
Senate Floor Amendment #2 inserts a new
subsection that limits the liability of a mall owner, manager, employee or
independent contractor of the mall owner.
The limited liability protects the above mentioned individuals from
being liable for damages as a result of reasonable compliance with the
provisions of the act or for loss or damages caused by the negligence or intentional
acts of any entity engaged in the noncommercial activities authorized by this
act.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
Senate Bill 140 grants
statutory authority for parties to distribute literature, solicit signatures on
petitions, and express opinions at certain sized privately owned shopping malls
subject to reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner imposed by the
owner.
Significant
Issues
This bill addresses constitutional issues of
speech. The intent of SB 140 is to grant
certain freedom of speech rights to individuals wanting to express themselves
or to solicit at a shopping mall, but also to balance those rights between the
mall owner and solicitor if the latter’s activities interfere with mall
business operations.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
1. The word “noncommercial” is not defined.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Courts are split on whether a party may pass out
literature and make solicitations (etc.) at a shopping mall. Some courts do not allow it on the grounds
that it is private property and because it requires a state to expand its state
constitutional rights beyond the current scope of the federal
constitution. Other courts allow it, but
permit the property owner to set reasonable restrictions on the time, place and
manner of the speech similar to the language on page 2, section B of the bill.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1. How does the bill define reasonable restrictions ?