State v. Murphy

The constitutional right to access public property does not confer an unlimited right of access.

Appellant appealed his conviction for four counts of criminal trespass in the second degree. Appellant assigned error to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that he was deprived of his procedural due process rights because the verbal order given to him excluding him from the post office did not "provide any process to challenge the exclusion order." The state argued on appeal that the appellant did not use the post office for any legitimate purpose, so his exclusion was not in violation of his constitutionally protected rights. When analyzing whether the state has infringed on someone's constitutionally protected rights, the court uses a two-part test: (1) whether state action deprived the individual of a protected interest and, if so, (2) what process the individual was due. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 US 422, 428 (1982). The constitutional right to access public property does not confer an unlimited right of access. City of Eugene v. Gannon, 294 Or App 819, 822-23 (2018). The court held that appellant did not assert a fundamental liberty interest because access to the post office is not absolute with respect to non-postal purposes. Affirmed.