Libraries attract and serve all segments of society. As a public institution dealing with such diverse patrons, libraries are sometimes faced with patron behavior that can be distracting to others or generally disruptive. A relatively recent federal appellate decision¹ dealt with the authority of a library to address a patron's behavior in a library setting. While this judicial decision specifically examined a dispute involving a homeless individual, the court's analysis has general application to the scope of the authority enjoyed by libraries to address disruptive behavior. The decision suggests that libraries have the authority to maintain an atmosphere fairly unique to a library setting, i.e., one that reasonably ensures peaceful study and contemplation.

Despite all the media attention devoted to the fact that the patron involved in the litigation was homeless, from a legal standpoint there is little if any difference between homeless and non-homeless library patrons. Although the individual filing suit argued otherwise, the central issue for the library was really not discrimination against certain undesirable members of the public, nor was it an evil attempt by the library to deprive patrons of their First Amendment rights; it was simply the library's attempt to define what was appropriate behavior for patrons in a library, and the enactment and fair enforcement of rules to address such disruptive behavior in the library.

I. Library Authority to Address Disruptive Behavior²

Section 5/4-7 of the Illinois Local Library Act empowers library boards to "carry out the spirit and intent of this Act in establishing, supporting and maintaining a public library or libraries for providing library service and... shall have the following powers:

1. To make and adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations, for their own guidance and for the government of the library as may be expedient, not inconsistent with this Act;.. "

11. To exclude from the use of the library any person who willfully violates the rules prescribed by the board;..."

The Public Library District act contains similar language. Section 16/30-55.55 specifically states:

Exclusion of certain persons from library. The board may exclude from the use of the library any person who willfully violates an ordinance or regulation prescribed by the board.

Based upon such authority, Illinois libraries can promulgate and enforce reasonable rules to further the maintenance of proper decorum and ensure that its patrons are 1) engaged in activities for which the library was intended (as defined in the library's mission statement and rules) and 2) not unreasonably interfering with others' use and enjoyment of the library, even if enforcement ultimately requires the removal of a patron.

II. From Reading Room to Courtroom: Federal Court Confirms Library Authority to Ensure Atmosphere of Study and Learning

In 1992, the decision of the Morristown Public Library to adopt rules to repeatedly remove a disruptive homeless patron, led the library all the way into the U.S. Federal Appellate Court for the Third Judicial Circuit.³ The dispute provides useful guidance on a number of legal principles related to library patron behavior. In Kreimer, a homeless man, Richard Kreimer, challenged the constitutionality of a library's rules purporting to govern certain patron conduct in the the library. Kreimer's behavior was deemed by library staff to consistently violate the recently enacted library rules. Mr. Kreimer was removed from the library on at least five occasions. In its defense, the library alleged that the rules were promulgated in response to complaints from patrons and staff members and were proper and necessary. The library alleged that Mr. Kreimer often exhibited "offensive and disruptive behavior, including staring at the following patrons and talking loudly to himself and "others." The library also argued that Mr. Kreimer's odor was "often so offensive that it prevented the library patrons from using certain areas and prohibited library employees from performing their jobs."

*Scott Uhler is a partner and Philippe Weiss is an associate with the firm of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd., with offices in Orland Park and Chicago. Scott Uhler and Philippe Weiss, 1995, reprinted with permission.

189

The library's log of patron and staff complaints regarding Mr. Kreimer, specifically referred to by the court, (evidencing the strategic importance of maintaining complete, updated and accurate records of all patron and staff complaints) described Mr. Kreimer's behavior:

1/14/89 Kreimer's odor prevents staff member from completing copying task.

3/30/89 Kreimer spent 90 minutes - twice - staring at reference librarians.

6/15/89 Library director called police after Kreimer was belligerent and hostile towards her.

7/21/89 Patron... followed by Kreimer after leaving library.

Rules were eventually promulgated by the Morristown Library to specifically address Mr. Kreimer's problematic behavior. The library's rules read in relevant part:

1. Patrons shall be engaged in activities associated with the use of a public library while in the building. Patrons not engaged in reading, studying or using library materials shall be required to leave the building...

5. Patrons shall respect the rights of others patrons and shall not harass or annoy others through noisy or boisterous activities, by staring at another person with the intent to annoy that person, by following another person about the building with the intent to annoy that person, by playing audio equipment so that others can hear it, by singing or talking to others or in monologues, or by behaving in a manner which may reasonably be expected to disturb other persons.

6. Patrons shall not interfere with the use of the library by other patrons, or interfere with library employees' performance of their duties...

9. Patrons shall not be permitted to enter the building without a shirt or other covering of their upper bodies or without shoes or other footwear. Patrons whose bodily hygiene is offensive so as to constitute a nuisance to others shall be required to leave the building.

These rules were then followed by notice of the possible penalties:

Any patron not abiding by these rules or other rules and regulations of the library shall be asked to leave the library premises. Library employees shall contact the Morristown Police if deemed advisable.

Any patron who violates the library rules and regulations shall be denied the privilege of access to the library by the Library Board of Trustees, on recommendation of the library director. Any patron whose privileges have been denied, may have the decision reviewed by the Board of Trustees.

Following the enactment of these rules and Mr. Kreimer's repeated removal from the library for violations, Mr. Kreimer brought suit against the library alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights and claiming that the rules were excessively broad and vague.

III. A Library is Not a Public Place Which is Required to Allow a Broad Range of First Amendment Activity

Each one of the above-cited rules was eventually upheld as constitutional by the Kreimer court⁴. The court distinguished between a purely public place or, "traditional public fora," where a wide range of individual behavior and expressions would be constitutionally protected and must be tolerated, and a library, which is considered a "limited public fora", open to the public for only a limited number of specific purposes and where only patron activities directly related to those purposes are constitutionally protected. The Kreimer court found that the Morristown Library was open for the "expressive activity" of "communication of the written word." So long as a library's rules reasonably relate to the activities and purpose of a library, they should pass constitutional muster. Therefore, the Kriemer court found the above-cited rules (all of which dealt with patron behavior) proper in that they all reasonably related to library patrons' "constitutionally protected interest in receiving the reading written communications" and to achieving "maximum library use."

With respect to the rule (Rule 9) relating to personal hygiene the court cautioned that this rule could lead to the expulsion of a patron who might "otherwise be peacefully engaged in permissible First Amendment activities within the purposes for which the library was opened, such as reading, writing or quiet contemplation." Accordingly, the court held that personal hygiene and related rules must be more than "reasonable," they must also be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest" and must also leave ample alternative channels of communication." However, the court still found the rule in controversy entirely proper, as written. As the Justices explained:

We find... this rule sufficiently narrow. The library's goal is served by its requirement that its patrons have non-offensive bodily hygiene, as this rule prohibits one patron from unreasonably interfering with other patrons' use and enjoyment of the library; it further promotes the library's interest in maintaining its facilities in a

190

sanitary and attractive condition. Lastly, we find that this rule leaves open alternative channels for communication in the sense that, so long as a patron complies with rules, he or she may use the library's facilities. Furthermore... we do not read the rule to bar permanently a patron from reentry to the library once the patron complies with the requirements.

The Kreimer Court's sanctioning of the Morristown Library's patron rules serves as a useful guide for other libraries. The Kreimer court's ruling supports the legal authority of library boards and administrators to impose and uphold general rules regarding proper decorum in the library when such rules are reasonably related to trying to maintain the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the library by patrons and employees.

IV. Media Attention

One other aspect of the Kreimer case bears mention. Despite its judicial victory, in the "court of public opinion" the Morristown Library took a undeserved beating. If a patron chooses to take action against the library, via lawsuit, or through direct appeals to the press, libraries are advised to handle the media carefully. As the Morristown Library quickly discovered in the Kreimer matter, statements by library board members and staff can easily be taken out of context, and with an issue as volatile and sensitive as homelessness, lack of any plan for dealing with the media can lead to a torrent of bad publicity and public charges of discrimination. In the Kriemer case, the media focused on Mr. Kreimer's allegedly unpleasant aroma, as the chief reason for this repeated expulsions from the library—this despite the fact that court documents clearly showed that his alleged intimidation of library patrons and staff played a much larger role. The volume of initially negative press toward the Morristown Library generated by articles and opinion pieces with such headlines as "It's Better To Smell the Homeless Than To Forsake Them," suggested wrongdoing by the Library where none really existed.

Practice Implications

We set forth the following basic guidelines related to the establishment and maintenance of rules regulating patron behavior to promote an appropriate and orderly atmosphere in a library:

• Draft or revise the Library's Mission Statement setting forth the basic purpose(s) behind the library's creation and operation.

• Draft rules, with the Kreimer decision as a general model, which set forth the expectations regarding patron behavior in the library.⁵

• Try to ensure fair and consistent enforcement of the rules. Your rules, however carefully draft are only useful if properly enforced by staff. It is important to provide employees with clear parameters on how best to react to a patron-caused other disturbance, while trying to avoid exacerbating the problem, and at the same time encouraging staff to intervene to minimize library disruptions. A simple verbal warning or warnings, delivered along with an explanation of your library's relevant rules and why they must be enforced consistently, can often prove the best way to handle "first offenses." Where feasible, conduct staff member training on dealing with disruptive and problem patrons.

• Inform the public of your rules, through posting and/or other methods designed to inform.

• Maintain an accurate, up-to-date record of patron and staff complaints. When recording a complaint ask for as many details as possible, and, where feasible, ask the complaining party sign and date the bottom of the complaint report. Instruct your staff to note in writing the names of all those known to have witnessed a library disturbance.

• Provide a process whereby patrons may appeal a decision to revoke or suspend library privileges for any length of time (beyond a temporay expulsion due to a specific incident).

• Develop or consider ahead of time a reasonable plan for sharing information with the media when an issue or conflict arises, and have a public statements carefully reviewed before their release.

Footnotes

1. Kreimer v. Morristown, et. al., 958 F.2d 1242 (3rd Cir. 1992)

2. Obviously, in cases where immediate bodily harm or property damage is threatened or in instances of other violent behavior, libraries have the ability to and should utilize local law enforcement officials to deal with the behavior. However, this article will only address library rules involving relatively less serious behavior that is still distracting and interferes with library services or other patrons' use of the library.

3. Kreimer v. Morristown, et. al., 958 F.2d 1242 (3rd Cir. 1992)

4. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assembly, and to petition the Goverment for a redress of grievances."

5. Be aware that there may be additional legal issues that could arise in this area, e.g., certain patron behavior may result from a disabling condition, as defined under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (A.D.A.). The ADA makes it more important, then, that patrons be given the benefit of the doubt, before punitive library action is taken. The law remains unclear regarding a library's obligation to address sexual harassment of a library employee by a patron.

191