The Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 Case Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Name and Context of Case
Facts of the Case
History of the Case
Legal Questions
Court Decision and Reasoning
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
Implications and Significance
References

Introduction: Name and Context of Case

The case examined in this presentation, Adderley v. Florida, came at the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. With the passage of critical legislation and the ending of de jure segregation at government and private institutions, African Americans felt empowered to fight further for their rights. The case at hand will focus on this legal question of the ability to exercise civil liberties and whether race relations played a role in the involved protests by black students.

Facts of the Case

The case Adderley v. Florida emerged in 1966 as students decided to protest civil rights issues at the local private State-owned jail. Despite warnings of trespassing multiple times, the students continued protesting, eventually being arrested and 32 being charged with malicious trespassing. The students have unsuccessfully appealed, and the case has reached the Supreme Court in an attempt to determine if Constitutional rights have been violated.

History of the Case

Despite the passage of the legislation discussed previously, racist policies and behaviors persisted, especially in the South, even at the institutional level. Students at Florid A&M University led a protest against racial segregation, although the concrete reason for what sparked the protests is unknown. They were arrested and taken to the local jail. The next data, a group of 200 other students, gathered outside the jail, protesting that their fellow students were kept for exercising their rights. The group was so large that they blocked the jail driveway leading up to and on the institutions property. The students were warned multiple times by the county sheriff to leave and that they would be arrested.

Given that the driveway was critical for transporting prisoners and provision of other services to the jail, the students were trespassing on the property and blocking the prisons function. After warnings, 107 demonstrators remained and were all arrested. Adderley was the representative for a group of 32 petitioners who were found guilty (out of the original 107) and sued the state for racial discrimination and violation of their civil liberties, such as the right to protest under the First Amendment. Meanwhile, the state argued that students were trespassing and charged the protesters under the statute of trespassing with malicious intent.

The petitioners sought to overturn their convictions which were affirmed by the lower courts, by taking the case to the Supreme Court. The group strongly argued that their First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated, although there was no evidence of any unfair action by the lower courts, which simply reaffirmed the state trespassing statute. The protesters cited the previous cases where peaceful demonstrations against segregation were dispersed, and people were charged with breaching the peace. These cases also came before the Supreme Court and held in favor of the protesters, indicating that their rights were violated by the unconstitutional application of vague laws (Vile, n.d.)

Legal Questions

The Court had to answer several key questions regarding the case in the determination of its decision. Of course, there were questions of violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as argued by the petitioners. There was also the issue of race and discrimination, which could have played a role given the high racial tensions. Finally, there was the discussion of how much power a custodian of private property has and whether they are able to suppress the amendment rights held by individuals on their private property.

Court Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme fully upheld convictions of malicious trespassing under the Florida statute as was decided by the lower courts. The statute was determined to be specific and Constitutional, fully applicable here, given the jail was on private property and not a location open to the public, in addition to the security concerns the protests were creating. The Florida statute was specific to the conditions when it would apply that it could not be used to infringe on any speech or expression rights.

The Supreme Court ultimately supported that there was ample evidence for arrest based on the Florida statute of trespassing with malicious intent. The students were warned and asked to leave the private property. The sheriff, needing to ensure the security and functioning of the jail, made the call for the arrests. The students were not arrested for their convictions, views, or race but for trespassing and that alone. The case hinged on the single point of the use of Floridas statute. The specific type of conduct, trespassing with malicious or mischievous intent, means that the act is done voluntarily without justification and shall be inclined to cause petty and trivial trouble (Adderley v. Florida, 2021). It was simple to prove this intent as protestors refused to listen to warnings or negotiations, as well as some informed the sheriff of the desire to be arrested. Therefore, trespassing was voluntary and intentional, upholding the statute and arrest.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Black, along with four other justices, delivered the opinion of the Court. They argued that despite Constitutional rights existing, it does not imply that rules and regulations should not be followed, even in public places (which this jail was not). The state was well within its rights to protect the security of its property and a sensitive infrastructure such as a jail. The right to assembly and freedom of speech do not apply universally. An organized society must prevail to prevent anarchy which may squash those very freedoms. Meanwhile, the dissenting opinion led by Justice Douglas emphasized the key role of protest, free speech, and demonstration in the formation of the nation. He argued the protesters had every right to be there given what they were protesting, and they were neither demonstrating dangerous behavior nor indicating that they were threatening the security of the jail. There were no obvious warning signs on the jail property. The justices argued that the state authorities overstepped the line, using the statute to squander dissent. They believed public officials should not have discretion in deciding which places can and cannot be used for expression rights under the Constitution.

Implications and Significance

Adderley v. Florida was one of a number of cases, including some cited as precedent by the petitioners as a precedent that revolved around the legality of protest in certain key locations. As known in this case, the Court reaffirmed that the jail was the states private property and they could do what they wished, including applying its own trespassing law. There were grave concerns at the time that prevented protests. The property will be labeled as essential or security risk or disruption to public life, leading to further arrests. It pushed the discussion as to where civil rights protests could take place and how without the protesters facing arrests for vaguely applied laws. However, based on the powers of the state as well as property laws, which have little to do with race, many of these protests, such as by the FAMU students, were considered illegal.

References

Adderley v. Florida. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.

Adderley v. Florida. (2021). Law Library. Web.

Lipez, K. (1967). The law of demonstrations: the demonstrators, the police, the courts. Denver Law Review, 44(4). Web.

Justia. (n.d.).Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). Web.

Vile, J. (n.d.). Adderley v. Florida (1966). Web.

Click Here To Order Now!