State v. Schmid
1980 N.J. LEXIS 2265, 423 A.2d 615, 84 N.J. 535 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New Jersey Constitution, when a private property owner dedicates their property to public use, they have a constitutional obligation to permit the reasonable exercise of speech and assembly. The property owner may only impose reasonable and clearly articulated regulations on the time, place, and manner of such expressive activities.
Facts:
- Chris Schmid, a member of the United States Labor Party, was not a student at Princeton University.
- Princeton University, a private, non-profit institution, had regulations requiring off-campus organizations to obtain permission before distributing materials on campus.
- No such permission was required for Princeton students or affiliated organizations.
- Schmid had previously been warned by the University that distributing materials without permission was forbidden and he would be subject to arrest for trespassing.
- On April 5, 1978, Schmid entered the main campus of Princeton University without seeking or obtaining permission.
- Schmid began distributing and selling political materials related to the Newark mayoral campaign and the Labor Party.
- A member of the Princeton University Security Department arrested Schmid for trespassing.
Procedural Posture:
- Chris Schmid was charged with trespass, a disorderly persons offense.
- Schmid was convicted in the Princeton Borough Municipal Court, a court of first instance.
- He appealed and received a trial de novo in the Superior Court, Law Division, where he was again found guilty.
- Schmid then filed an appeal with the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- While the appeal was pending in the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court directly certified the case for its own review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the conviction of an individual for criminal trespass for distributing political literature on the campus of a private university, which lacked reasonable standards governing such activity, violate the free speech and assembly rights guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Handler, J.
Yes. The conviction violates the New Jersey Constitution because a private university that has opened its property to the public for purposes consistent with free expression cannot unreasonably restrict those rights. While the U.S. Constitution's application is uncertain due to the complex 'state action' doctrine, the New Jersey Constitution provides broader, independent protection for speech and assembly that can apply to private entities. The court established a three-part test considering: (1) the nature, purpose, and primary use of the private property; (2) the extent and nature of the public's invitation to use it; and (3) the purpose of the expressional activity in relation to the property's use. Applying this test, Princeton's mission embraces free inquiry, it has an open campus policy, and Schmid's political speech was not incompatible with the university's educational goals. Because Princeton's regulations at the time lacked any reasonable standards for granting or denying permission, they were constitutionally deficient and could not be used as the basis for a trespass conviction.
Concurring - Schreiber, J.
Yes. The conviction should be reversed based on the New Jersey Constitution, but the majority's analysis of the U.S. Constitution is incorrect. Under federal precedent, there is clearly no First Amendment violation because Princeton University is not the 'functional equivalent of a municipality' as required by Marsh v. Alabama. The proper basis for the decision is the State Constitution, which applies when a property owner has dedicated its property for a public use involving public discussion, as Princeton has done with its campus. By holding itself out as a forum for open debate, Princeton assumed a public function and must therefore honor the state's constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Pashman, J.
Yes. The conviction violates the New Jersey Constitution, but the majority's extensive discussion of the federal First Amendment was unnecessary dictum and reached the wrong conclusion. The enforcement of state trespass laws against an individual constitutes 'state action,' making the First Amendment applicable. The proper federal analysis is not whether Princeton is a 'company town,' but a balancing of the university's property rights against the speaker's expressive rights. The majority also improperly concluded that adequate alternative forums for communication existed without a sufficient record. While the judgment is correct under the State Constitution, the majority's restrictive view of the First Amendment is unjustified.
Analysis:
This is a landmark New Jersey Supreme Court decision that establishes the state constitution as an independent source of protection for individual liberties, potentially offering greater rights than the U.S. Constitution. It holds that free speech rights can be enforced against private entities, like universities or shopping centers, without satisfying the federal 'state action' requirement, provided the private property is sufficiently dedicated to public use. The case creates a new, flexible three-part balancing test for resolving conflicts between private property rights and expressive freedoms, significantly influencing how publicly-accessible private forums in New Jersey must accommodate speech.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Schmid