VIRGINIA v. HICKS

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a state redevelopment and housing authority's trespass policy is overly broad and thereby violates the First Amendment. Overbreadth and standing.

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of Virginia, owns and operates Whitcomb Court, a low-income housing development. In 1997, the Richmond City Council conveyed Whitcomb Court's streets to the Authority in an effort to combat crime and drug dealing by nonresidents. In accordance with the terms of conveyance, the Authority enacted a policy authorizing the Richmond police to serve notice on any person lacking "a legitimate business or social purpose" for being on the premises and to arrest for trespassing any person who remains or returns after having been so notified. 

The Authority gave respondent Kevin Hicks, a nonresident, written notice barring him from Whitcomb Court. Subsequently, he trespassed there and was arrested and convicted. At trial, he claimed that RRHA's policy was, among other things, unconstitutionally overbroad. The Virginia Court of Appeals vacated his conviction. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because an unwritten rule that leafleting and demonstrating require advance permission vested too much discretion in Whitcomb Court's manager.