Mirage

FN35. 116 Mich.App. 57, 321 N.W.2d 842 (1982).

FN36. Id. at 844.

FN37. Id.

FN38. Id. at 847.

FN39. Id.

Other courts have also consistently ruled that private property held open to the public does not, in and of itself, create a public right to access. [FN40]

FN40. See Southwest Community Resources, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, LP, 108 F.Supp.2d 1239 (D.N.M.2000) (mall was not public forum and mall operator was not state actor for purpose of First Amendment); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 13 F.Supp.2d 1064 (D.Nev.1998) (mall was not public forum subject to First Amendment protections); Garrison v. City of Lakeland, 954 F.Supp. 246 (M.D.Fla.1997) (paved road adjacent to hospital was private property not subject to First Amendment); McMurdie v. Doutt, 468 F.Supp. 766 (N.D.Ohio 1979) ("shopping center's sidewalks, streets, and parking areas, although open to the public by the private owner ... may be subjected to nondiscriminatory bans on expression without running afoul of the First Amendment"); Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Reber, 454 F.Supp. 1385 (C.D.Cal.1978) (private road adjacent to theme park not public forum); People v. Yutt, 231 Ill.App.3d 718, 173 Ill.Dec. 500, 597 N.E.2d 208 (1992) (clinic-owned sidewalks not public forum); Planned Parenthood of Mid-Iowa v. Maki, 478 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa 1991) (private property of reproductive health clinic not subject to First Amendment); State v. Scholberg, 412 N.W.2d 339 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (private health clinic was not public forum); State v. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.1999) (private shopping mall was not public forum); Cincinnati v. Thompson, 96 Ohio App.3d 7, 643 N.E.2d 1157 (1994) (clinic property was private and therefore not subject to First Amendment constraints); State v. Purdue, 111 Or.App. 586, 826 P.2d 1037 (1992) (private parking lot of women's clinic not functional equivalent of public property); but see Thomason v. Jernigan, 770 F.Supp. 1195 (E.D.Mich.1991) (city vacated right-of-way on privately-owned sidewalk in front of health clinic was public forum); and Citizens to End Animal Suffering v. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc., 745 F.Supp. 65 (D.Mass.1990) (outdoor shopping area was public forum). S.O.C./Hillsboro also cite to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in S.O.C. v. Clark County, 152 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.1998), for the proposition that the sidewalks along the Las Vegas Strip are public forums. In S.O.C., the Ninth Circuit struck down C.C.C. Section 16.12, which sought to ban off-premise canvassing in the Las Vegas Resort District as being overly broad. Id. at 1148. S.O.C./Hillsboro argue, that "sidewalks are a public forum if on 'private property upon which a limited easement of public access has been granted.' " We conclude that S.O.C. addressed the First Amendment implications of the enforcement by C.C.C. Section 16.12 and did not address whether privately-owned sidewalks along the Strip were required to be opened as public forums for First Amendment purposes. The S.O.C. decision did not rest on an analysis of the complex question before this court regarding the intersection of the First Amendment and private property rights.