HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Roadside Memorials20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606 -2903
T 312 934 6400 F 312 934 6444
DD 312 934 6463
gowagner@ktjlaw.com
MEMORANDUM
VIA EMAIL
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY- CLIENT COMMUNICATION
TO: Michael E. Janonis
Mount Prospect Village Manager
FROM: George A. Wagner
Assistant Village Attorney
DATE: March 22, 2012
RE: Roadside Memorials
15010 S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10
Orland Park, Illinois 60462 -5353
T 703 349 3333 F 703 349 1506
www.ktjlaw.com
You have asked us to research and provide a memorandum on several issues
involving the placement of roadside memorials on Village property. This memorandum
will provide a general overview of First Amendment Law, and then address the following
questions related to roadside memorials: (1) can the location of roadside memorials be
limited to a certain distance from the memorialized event ?; (2) can roadside memorials
only be erected at the request of an immediate family member ?; (3) can the Village
regulate the length of time that a roadside memorial can be on display ?; and (4) how
does Illinois regulate roadside memorials?
First Amendment Overview
The placement of roadside memorials constitutes a form of speech and therefore
implicates the protections of the First Amendment. First Amendment analysis differs
depending on whether the situs of the speech is considered a public or nonpublic forum.
When a nonpublic forum is involved, i.e. where the public property is not by tradition or
designation a forum for public communication, the Village can regulate speech so long
as such regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate
governmental interest. Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators'
Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983). In a nonpublic forum, the Village can regulate on the
basis of both subject matter and speaker identity so long as such regulations are
reasonably related to a legitimate Village interest, such as public safety. When a public
forum is involved, speech can only be regulated if the regulation is a reasonable time,
place and manner restriction, meaning it must be content neutral, narrowly tailored to
serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of
communicating the information. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791
(1989).
2836631
Mr. Michael Janonis
March 22, 2012
Page 2
Village rights of way are considered traditional public fora. Currently, the Village
does not formally allow placement of any roadside memorials on the right of way.
However, if the Village decides to do so, any regulations would be subject to First
Amendment scrutiny, and therefore must be content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a
significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communicating
the information. Any regulation the Village wishes to impose on roadside memorials
must satisfy this test.
II. Can the location of roadside memorials be limited to a certain distance from the
memorialized event?
If the Village desires to limit the location of roadside memorials, such a regulation
will probably withstand First Amendment scrutiny. The regulation would be content
neutral, as it would apply to all roadside memorials, and it would still allow the speech to
occur. In addition, given the Village's public safety interest in avoiding cluttered
parkways throughout the Village, limiting the placement of memorials to the general
location of the event or action being memorialized would be a narrowly tailored
regulation to serve such an interest. Therefore, this type of regulation would most likely
be permissible under the First Amendment.
III. Can roadside memorials only be erected at the request of an immediate family
member?
This regulation proves more troubling under the First Amendment. Although the
Village would not be regulating the content of the speech, and therefore the regulation
may on its face appear content neutral, the Village would be limiting the speaker.
Certain people would be allowed to speak while others would not. Although the Village
may have a significant interest in limiting the number of memorials for a certain event
through only allowing immediate family request memorials, this type of regulation would
not be narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest. Therefore, under general First
Amendment analysis, this regulation would most likely be impermissible.
IV. Can the Village regulate the length of time that a roadside memorial can be on
display?
This regulation is much more similar to the aforementioned distance regulation.
It is clearly content neutral since it would apply to all roadside memorials regardless of
content. In addition, it still allows for the speech to occur, but simply limits the
duration. Such a regulation is narrowly tailored to serve the Village's interest in avoiding
rights of way from becoming cluttered with old, deteriorated memorials. Therefore, this
regulation would most likely be permissible under the First Amendment.
2836631
Mr. Michael Janonis
March 22, 2012
Page 3
V. Does Illinois law regulate roadside memorials?
The Illinois Roadside Memorial Act, "Tina's Law" (P.A. 95 -398), 605 ILCS 125/1
et seq., was adopted effective January 1, 2008. This Act establishes a statewide
Roadside Memorial Program for people who died as a result of a driver under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs. It allows municipalities to establish a Roadside
Memorial program within its jurisdiction mimicking the state's program.
The Illinois regulation seems problematic on its face, as it allows certain roadside
memorials based solely on their content, i.e. drug and alcohol related accidents, and
limits such memorials to the request of a qualified relative of a victim. Although it has
yet to be challenged in court, it clearly presents problems under the First Amendment.
If the Village were to adopt the Illinois law, it could be exposing itself to liability by only
allowing certain types of memorials at the request of certain persons. Therefore, if the
Village wishes to allow, but regulate, roadside memorials, the more prudent course would
be to subject such memorials only to the distance and duration regulations discussed
above. Additionally, as we discussed, application of the Village's ordinance on state
rights of way may be questioned by the state.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let me know.
2836631