Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Adderley v. Florida

Supreme Court of the United States · 1966 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentTrespassGovernment Propertyfree speechassemblypetitiontrespass

Facts

Petitioners, apparently students at Florida A. & M. University, joined a group of about 200 students who marched to the county jail to demonstrate in protest of earlier arrests of other students and possibly segregation policies, including segregation of the jail. They entered the jail grounds through a driveway used for jail purposes, remained on the driveway and adjacent grassy area, and continued to block vehicular passage after being asked to move back. The sheriff, legal custodian of the jail and its grounds, told them they were trespassing, gave them time to leave, and warned that those who stayed would be arrested; some left, but petitioners remained and were arrested. The sheriff testified that he arrested only those who remained on the jail premises and not anyone attempting to leave.

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment forbid Florida from convicting demonstrators under its trespass statute when they refused to leave jail grounds after the sheriff ordered them to depart, where they were on government property while protesting arrests and segregation policies? Also, was the trespass statute void for vagueness or unsupported by evidence as applied here?

Rule

A State, no less than a private owner of property, may preserve property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated, and the Constitution does not prevent even-handed enforcement of a general trespass statute against persons who refuse to leave such property after being ordered to do so. A narrowly focused trespass statute aimed at specific conduct is not unconstitutionally vague merely because it requires a malicious and mischievous intent, especially where those terms are reasonably defined by the trial court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, a group of demonstrators entered the fenced vehicle bay of the Franklin County detention center to protest sentencing disparities. The bay was used only for transporting detainees and for deliveries. After the jail administrator told the group they were trespassing and ordered them to leave, several stayed and were arrested under Ohio's general trespass statute.

If the arrestees argue that the First Amendment gave them a right to remain because they were protesting government policy on government property, what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that a State, like a private owner, may preserve property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated. Jail-related property used for security and operations is not traditionally open to the public in the same way as capitol grounds or streets. If officials gave clear notice to leave and enforced trespass law even-handedly rather than because of the demonstrators' views, the First Amendment does not confer a right to remain.