Removing Disruptive Individuals
By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1991, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m16
Does a church have the legal authority to remove disruptive individuals from church services? This issue has been addressed by a number of courts. Generally, the courts have been sympathetic to attempts by churches to deny access to disruptive individuals. To illustrate, a Connecticut court agreed that a church could bar a disruptive individual from entering onto church premises.1 It noted that “there was ample evidence that the defendant entered church property, on the three occasions charged, as a knowing trespasser. The record reveals that the defendant had been unequivocally informed and understood that his privilege to attend church services had been revoked. . . . The record here is replete with evidence that this defendant knew that he was trespassing upon church property and was unwelcome at services.” With regard to the defendant's claim that a church is “public property” and that one cannot be convicted of trespassing for attending services, the court observed that “property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. . . . The owner or one in lawful possession has the right to determine whom to invite, the scope of the invitation and the circumstances under which the invitation may be revoked.” As to the defendant's claim that his constitutional rights were violated by his conviction for attending church services, the court observed that there is “no constitutional right to `freedom of movement' or `freedom of worship' on private property where there is no license or privilege to be there.”
A Texas appeals court ruled that a trespasser could be ordered off church property.2 A trespasser entered onto a church's premises just prior to the conclusion of Sunday morning services. He carried a sign and attempted to speak with persons leaving the church services about “taxes” and “civil rights.” A security guard asked the trespasser to leave the premises, and when he refused, the police were called in. When the trespasser continued speaking with church members, two security guards physically restrained him and held him in a church building until the police arrived. The trespasser was convicted of criminal trespass and was sentenced to 90 days in jail. The court further ordered the trespasser “not to go onto or within 200 yards of the [church].” He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had a constitutional right to be on the church's property, and that the requirement that he not go within 200 yards of the church in the future was unreasonable.
A state appeals court rejected both of these arguments. In rejecting the trespasser's claim that his criminal conviction for trespass violated his constitutional right of free speech, the court emphasized that the first amendment guaranty of free speech “is not protected” on private property, and therefore had no application to a church. In concluding that the church's property was private property, the court observed that (1) the trespasser ignored warnings to stay off the property, (2) the church had signs posted on its premises clearly stating that the premises were for church use only, and (3) church policy prohibits picketing or demonstrating on its property. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court's order prohibiting the trespasser from coming within 200 yards of the church property was reasonable: “It significantly contributes to [his] rehabilitation by removing from him the temptation of trespassing on the church's property. The condition also insures that those persons legally using the property will be protected from any unlawful interference.”
For related information on this topic see the following articles:Reporting Requirements for Churches
Church Officers, Directors, and Trustees