APRI Highlights - Summer 2003

Michael Kuykendall

Director, National Center for Community Prosecution

National and International Developments

APRI’s National Center for Community Prosecution held the 2nd National Community Prosecution Conference in Washington, D.C., April 13-16. Approximately 250 state and local prosecutors, city attorneys, police officials, community representatives and other allied professionals from across the country and internationally, including prosecutors from Sweden and Japan, came together to celebrate the successes of the community prosecution movement over the past decade and to address emerging challenges.

During the week of March 10, 2003, NCCP Director Michael Kuykendall traveled to Tokyo, Japan, at the request of the Japanese Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the Japanese Embassy in Washington, D.C. Director Kuykendall met with Prosecutor General Akio Harada and his top staff, presented lectures to MOJ officials, and attended meetings to answer questions from public prosecutors about community prosecution. Director Kuykendall travels to Stockholm in August to deliver a series of lectures to the Swedish Prosecutor Generals Office.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Trespass-Exclusion Policy

Community prosecutors across the country increasingly use neighborhood access restrictions to combat crimes such as drug dealing and prostitution. In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these restrictions.

In Virginia v. Hicks1, the Court examined the constitutionality of a trespass-exclusion policy implemented by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA). The written trespass-exclusion policy allowed the RRHA property manager to bar persons who could not “demonstrate a legitimate business or social purpose” for being on the premises. The property covered by the policy included streets and sidewalks that had been conveyed by the City of Richmond to the local housing authority. The “no trespass” policy was enacted to curtail the “open air drug market” plaguing the community.

The defendant was arrested when he was found to be in an area in which he had prior knowledge that he was prohibited from entering due to past incidents, including criminal activity. The defendant was subsequently convicted of trespass. He appealed, arguing that the trespass-exclusion policy was vague, overly broad and violated his rights to free speech and association under the United States Constitution. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against the practice, finding that it vested RRHA with “broad and unfettered discretion” to regulate speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.

In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of local government to enforce laws reflecting “legitimate state interests in maintaining comprehensive controls over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct.” In this case, the Court found that neither the basis for the sanction (the prior criminal conduct) nor its purpose (preventing future trespasses) implicated the First Amendment. As the defendant was not engaged in constitutionally protected conduct when he was arrested and failed to demonstrate that anyone engaged in constitutionally protected speech would be barred, the Court decided that this case presented no “chilling effect” on protected speech.

With this ruling, trespass-exclusion policies are likely to continue to be used as tools by community prosecutors in combating criminal activity in their neighborhoods. For more information on effective community prosecution tools and techniques, please contact the National Center for Community Prosecution at 703-519-4253.

1 Virginia v. Hicks, No. 02-371. Argued April 30, 2003—Decided June 16, 2003; Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kevin Lamont Hicks, 264 Va. 48; 563 S.E.2d 674 2002 Va. LEXIS 71, June 7, 2002, Decided.