Posted on 06/25/2006 4:28:48 PM PDT by rawhide
Charges were dropped against a Sacramento-area youth pastor who was arrested while sharing his Christian faith one-on-one with shoppers at a mall.
Matthew Snatchko, who regularly takes a small group of youth from his church to the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., said he was interrupted by a security guard May 8 while in the middle of a conversation.
Pointing out no one has ever complained of his activities at the mall, Snatchko told WND the guard demanded he leave because he was "walking around and talking to people."
The pastor, 23, said he "kind of laughed," insisting he wasn't doing anything wrong, because "everyone else was walking around and talking as well."
A second security guard then joined the encounter and informed Snatchko he was being placed under citizen's arrest for "trespassing." The pastor says he agreed to leave peacefully, but, instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.
With the youth pastor facing a court date, the senior pastor at his church contacted the Sacramento-based public-interest legal group Pacific Justice Institute.
Affiliate attorneys for the group, Gregory Koonce and Timothy Smith, said the district attorney's office likely realized the arrest was illegal and decided to drop the case "in the interests of justice."
Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute, said that while Snatchko has been successfully defended, the dismissal of charges did not set a precedent, leaving others vulnerable.
Koonce said, "This won't be the last time a shopping mall tries to shut down evangelism. I wish I could say this kind of thing won't happen in the future, but we just can't say for sure."
Snatchko told WND: "I believe what they were doing was wrong. Anyone who has any common sense knows you can't stop someone because of the topic of conversation, when no complaints are being made and there's no visible distraction or discomfort. To say you have to leave because you're talking about a certain thing is wrong."
Matthew McReynolds, counsel for Pacific Justice Institute said experiences like Snatchko's are all too common.
"Shopping malls cannot selectively have people removed because they hear people talking about their faith with a willing listener," he told WND. "That kind of a tactic is something for George Orwell's '1984,' not for us of America."
McReynolds said California's constitution actually is broader than the federal constitution with respect to free speech, providing protections to people in quasi-public forums such as shopping malls, as well as in public forums.
"Private institutions are not free to openly discriminate against customers who may be of Christian faith," he said.
A win for the Good Guys for a Change.
Sue them!
The time of trying to get along with them is over.
It's useless, and it's time to get in their face!
If we don't back them down, they will keep comng forward.
That argument won't fly. The First Ammendment protects you against the government. It does not give you the right to speak your mind while ensconced on private property you don't own. Note that the charge was tresspassing--which means a) entering onto private property uninvited, or b) remaining on private property after being asked to leave.
Imagine a mall owned by Christians, who might wish to expell a group of prosletyzing Hare Krishna. The right to property would be the issue, no freedom of speech or freedom of religion--and the latter would have to apply to all parties equally in any case.
You are incorrect. Multiple courts have maintained that while the property is private, its use is public and they cannot discriminate.
Sorry, but I'm not wrong, as can be clearly ascertained by reading the current controlling SC decision on the matter, Hudgens v. NLRB
I think the lawsuit should be over battery. If he did agree to leave peacefully but was then treated in the physical manner described, he has a good chance.
Agreed.
Under California law, you are still wrong. A case similar to this, though nothing to do with religion, was decided in California many years ago. The CA law has been tested.
That admittedly smells of charges "tacked on" as a "CYA" maneuver.
Yes, especially in a civil suit, where the standards of evidence are more favorable.
Yes, I came across that information after my initial rebuttal. Still, it would seem most of those who had commented on this thread were assuming a violation of the Federal Constitution had taken place, when in fact the California situation is simply an example of courts creating rights which not only aren't rights, but are violations of true rights. Typical of California, of course.
I can't speak to the legalities, but my sympathies are with the mall.
I'm old enough to remember trying to push past dozens of weird religous groups to get to my gate in the airport. A mall is a convenient, privately-owned place to shop - they should have the right to throw out anyone they want, for darn near any reason!
Sure you are. You are trying to compare equally the actions of a private citizen in a public place with the actions of an organization labor union at odds with a leasee. In the first case it is a conservation in the second it is a demonstration.
The two are unrelated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.