places or in any manner that may be desired." Gannett, 745 F.2d at 772.
Nothing prevented him from expressing his views that evening outside the church as people arrived and departed. Likewise, nothing prevented him from addressing a question to the panel of speakers during the question-and-answer period. If Crist had been refused the opportunity to join the audience and voice his anti-abortion viewpoints as questions to the invited panel because the sponsors wished to restrict expression of his views, this case may have required a different result. Under those circumstances, plaintiff's desired means of expression would not have been so incompatible with the forum that evening. However, this was decidedly not the case here.
Plaintiff also argues that enforcement of New York's trespass laws in this case represents content-based regulation of speech. In his view, the Village through its police officers, sought "selectively to shield the public from only some kinds of speech." Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 209, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268, (1975). The decision to selectively refuse plaintiff the right to speak, however, was not made by the Village nor by the police. The organizers of the "Informed Choice" event refused plaintiff's demands to join the scheduled panel. Any content-based decision that was made, was made by the event's organizers through defendant Potash, a private group.
Further, the arresting officer did not shield the public from anti-abortion viewpoints. Plaintiff was free to voice his opinions openly and publicly, outside the church, or during the question-and-answer period inside the church. The police arrested plaintiff only when he refused to either join the audience peacefully or leave church premises.
We conclude that Crist's demands were incompatible as a matter of law with the extent to which the church was opened up as a forum during the evening of plaintiff's arrest. Refusing to allow Crist to address the audience at a private fund-raiser did not run afoul of the First Amendment or New York law. Event organizers were within their rights to deny Crist from participating on the terms he demanded.
His refusal and continued presence on church property could support a valid charge of trespass. See People v. Marino, 135 Misc. 2d 304, 515 N.Y.S.2d 162, 166 (Just.Ct. 1986).
So long as the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespassing, plaintiff can make out no violation of § 1983. Sgt. Kahn observed firsthand the plaintiff on church property and the specific demand that he attend like any other member of the public or leave. Under these circumstances, we have little difficulty in concluding that probable cause existed.
To conclude, plaintiff's complaint against the Village of Larchmont, the Larchmont Police Department, its Police Chief, Andrea Potash, and the Larchmont Avenue church is dismissed. Because we grant defendant Potash's motion to dismiss, we need not resolve the motions by the Larchmont defendants to dismiss Potash's cross-claims. Clerk shall enter judgment for the defendants and dismiss the complaint.
Dated: White Plains, New York
July 21, 1992.
GERARD L. GOETTEL