Shea, J.

The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a court of this state may direct that the rights of free speech and petition in our state constitution may be exercised upon private property consisting of a large regional shopping center, contrary to the wishes of its owners. We conclude that it may not and vacate the judgment which contained such a decree.

The plaintiffs are the Connecticut National Organization for Women (hereinafter NOW) and one of its members, Christine A. Cologne, who are interested in promoting the rights of women through education and governmental action. The defendants are a partnership, Westfarms Associates (hereinafter Westfarms), which owns a large retail shopping center located partly in West Hartford and partly in Farmington, known as the Westfarms Mall (hereinafter Mall), the individual partners and the person1 who operates the Mall on behalf of his employer, the Taubman Company, which has contracted to manage the property for the owners.

The Mall consists of four connected buildings which house under one roof approximately 120 retail businesses occupying 407,200 square feet of space and *51several major department stores containing about 500,000 square feet. All of these establishments are connected by common passageways. At each end of the building complex there is a courtyard area with seating accommodations designed to allow patrons of the Mall to relax while shopping. A similar “grand court” of 14,000 square feet is located approximately in the center. The passageways and courtyard areas are situated within this building and are protected from the weather. Westfarms permits and sponsors various activities to be conducted in the grand court, such as health clinics, volunteer tax assistance facilities, informational programs, exhibitions, fashion shows and concerts.

The Mall is served by several major traffic arteries, including interstate highway 1-84, and it provides a parking area sufficient for 5000 cars. Several bus lines regularly provide public transportation to the Mall from surrounding communities. Approximately 5000 people patronize the Mall each day from Monday to Friday and on weekends approximately 10,000 do so. Those numbers double during the Christmas holiday shopping season. There are also 2000 people working at the Mall throughout the year, and an additional 1000 during the Christmas shopping season. There are no public streets or sidewalks within the building complex, adjacent thereto or within the parking areas.

About May 25,1981, the plaintiffs sought permission from the company which operates the Mall to solicit persons visiting the shopping center to sign petitions in support of the equal rights amendment (ERA) to the federal constitution. The request was denied and the plaintiffs were advised that to allow such activities was contrary to the written policy of the defendants. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced a suit seeking injunc-tive relief for the purpose of enabling them to obtain signatures in support of ERA on the Mall premises.

*52On January 4,1982, judgment was rendered, Bieluch, J., for the plaintiffs requiring the defendants to provide a location in the grand court of the Mall where the plaintiffs could conduct their petitioning activities in support of ERA under specified conditions until that amendment was ratified or until July 1,1982, the deadline established for such ratification. Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 37 Conn. Sup. 90, 114-17, 442 A.2d 471 (1982) (Cologne I).

Soon after this injunction had expired in accordance with its terms, the plaintiffs brought the present action, the defendants having refused a further request to continue any solicitation activities at the Mall. In their complaint the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from preventing them from soliciting signatures on petitions and from distributing informational literature upon the common areas of Westfarms Mall without any limitation as to subject matter. On March 2, 1983, the trial court, Spada, J., rendered a judgment enjoining the defendants during the period of January 1 through September 30 of each year from “prohibiting the plaintiffs’ solicitation by voice, signs and descriptive materials of signatures on petitions in support of legislation pertaining to: (1) Aid to Families of Dependent Children; (2) Pay Equity Between the Sexes; (3) Sex Discrimination in Insurance Contracts; (4) Enforcement of Child Support Orders; and (5) Renewal of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, at a single location in the Grand Court of the Mall to be designated by the defendants.” This order was made subject to numerous conditions2 regulating the time, place and *53manner in which the plaintiffs should conduct their activities, including a restriction confining the use of signs, descriptive materials and petitions, to the five issues specified. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed from this judgment.

*54The plaintiffs did not actually gain access to the Mall for the purpose of conducting their activities until April 23,1983.3 From that date until November 1,1983, the plaintiffs have conducted their activities in the grand court of the Mall in accordance with the conditions set forth in the judgment, except for a period of two weeks. They have observed both the content restriction and the time limitation imposed by the injunction order which are the basis for their appeal from that judgment.

While the plaintiffs’ initial appeal was pending, the defendants sought a dissolution of the injunction granting access to the plaintiffs. The defendants’ claim there *55focused on an incident occurring on Sunday morning, May 22,1983, involving an attempt by members of the Ku Klux Klan to make an appearance at the Mall after their demand for access had been denied by the defendants.4 On that day, the defendants, with the assistance of members of the police forces of West Hartford and Farmington, barred them from entering the Mall. After their departure, however, a number of anti-Klan demonstrators, who had been attracted by the report of the intended appearance of the Klan, engaged in a heated demonstration outside the Mall building. Police from several area towns and the state police were needed to bring the situation under control. This demonstration resulted in the closing of some of the stores in the Mall for a portion or for the remainder of that day. It is clear that none of the groups or individuals involved in the disturbance was concerned in any manner with the plaintiffs, who were not at the Mall premises at the time.

The circumstances of this disturbance were relied upon by the defendants in their motion to dissolve the injunction granting access to the plaintiffs. After an evidentiary hearing, the court, Ripley, J., concluded that to allow access to the interior of the Mall building by many organizations seeking to exercise the same *56privileges afforded to the plaintiffs by the injunction would create a highly dangerous situation which the police would be unable to control. Accordingly, the injunction was modified by limiting the location where the plaintiffs could conduct the activities permitted under the first judgment to the exterior of the building under a portico at one of the entrances. The plaintiffs and the defendants have amended the appeal and cross-appeal from the first judgment to include their claims of error relating to the order modifying the injunction. The plaintiffs claim that the court had no power to modify the injunction while an appeal was pending and that the circumstances of the disturbance, which were wholly unrelated to their activities, did not warrant any modification of its terms. The defendants claim that the court should have dissolved the injunction rather than modify it.

The issues presented by this appeal have an intricate background. In Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S. Ct. 2219, 33 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the contention that a privately owned retail shopping center was the functional equivalent of the business district of a municipality upon which expressive activity protected by the first amendment to the federal constitution might be conducted as freely as upon a village green. The court found inapplicable the rationale that where a private enterprise performs the role of a municipality it comes under the same strictures which bind governmental agencies. See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 507-508, 66 S. Ct. 276, 90 L. Ed. 265 (1946). The court distinguished Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308, 318, 88 S. Ct. 1601, 20 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1968), where picketing by a union against one of the stores in a shopping center had been permitted, on the ground that such expressive activity was related only to the dispute between *57the employer and the workers involved. This distinction was later seen to constitute discrimination in the regulation of free expression on the basis of its content and Logan Valley Plaza was overruled. Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S. Ct. 1029, 47 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1976); see Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S. Ct. 2286, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1972). It is clear that if the plaintiffs’ asserted right to conduct their activities on the defendants’ property depended entirely on federal constitutional provisions, they could not prevail. They do not claim otherwise.

The refusal to extend federal constitutional protection to expressive activity on private property left unresolved the question of whether such conduct might be protected by parallel state constitutional provisions. Federal law, whether based upon statute or constitution, establishes a minimum national standard for the exercise of individual rights and does not inhibit state governments from affording higher levels of protection for such rights. Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 293, 102 S. Ct. 1070, 71 L. Ed. 2d 152 (1982) ; Paris Adult Theater, Inc. v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 64, 93 S. Ct. 2628, 37 L. Ed. 2d 446, reh. denied, 414 U.S. 881, 94 S. Ct. 27, 38 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1973); State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 45 n.12, 463 A.2d 573 (1983) ; Griswold Inn, Inc. v. State, 183 Conn. 552, 559 n.3, 441 A.2d 16 (1981); Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 473, 475, 378 A.2d 553 (1977); Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 641-42, 376 A.2d 359 (1977). In recognition of this principle, the Supreme Court of the United States in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980), although reaffirming its view that there was no federal basis for a right of access to a private shopping center for the purpose of expressive activity, held that the California courts were at liberty to construe that *58state’s constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech to require such access, and that no violation of federally protected property rights or first amendment rights of the owners had occurred.

This invitation to state courts to construe state constitutional guaranties to enhance freedom of expression above the minimum federal constitutional level in the context of access to shopping centers for political propagandizing efforts has occasioned some remarkably close divisions of opinion among the judges who have considered the matter.5 Robins v. Pruneyard, Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 592 P.2d 341,153 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1979); Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983); Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, 128 Mich. App. 649, 341 N.W.2d 174 (1983); State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 273 S.E.2d 708 (1981); Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council, 96 Wash. 2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981). Both the California and Washington decisions rely in part upon the highly significant role which initiative, referendum and recall sponsored directly by the citizenry have played in the constitutional schemes of those states, and the practical importance of access to large congregations of voters in order to obtain signatures on petitions used to implement those rights. The Massachusetts decision was expressly limited to the solicitation of signatures *59needed by political candidates for access to the ballot and relied, not upon its freedom of speech provision, but upon a state constitutional guaranty of “ ‘an equal right to elect officers and to be elected, for public employments.’ ” Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., supra, 97.

In a somewhat different context, where private universities have attempted to enforce their bans upon campus solicitation without permission, two state courts have construed their criminal trespass statutes, in the light of state constitutional free speech guaranties, to be inapplicable to the dissemination of political ideas upon the grounds of private education institutions. Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 432 A.2d 1382 (1981); State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 423 A.2d 615 (1980). The concern of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tate was that a college which had sponsored the presentation of one speaker’s views upon a subject should invoke a standardless permission requirement to prevent others from expressing opposing views upon an area of the campus normally open to the public. Similarly, in Schmid the New Jersey Supreme Court, in finding that electioneering activity upon a college campus could not support a conviction for criminal trespass under the state constitution, focused upon the absence of reasonable standards regulating the granting or withholding of permission to persons seeking to communicate their political viewpoints as well as upon the inconsistency of banning such communication with the general university policy of encouraging political debate.

The provisions of our Connecticut constitution upon which the plaintiffs rely are §§ 4 and 14 of article first, which is entitled “Declaration of Rights.” Section 4 provides: “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Section 14 provides: “The *60citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.” A closely related provision of this article is § 5: “No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.” The language of these sections has remained unchanged since the adoption of our first state constitution in 1818. They appear to be almost an exact replica of corresponding sections of the Mississippi constitution which had been adopted the previous year.6 The freedom of speech provisions of §§ 4 and 5 are quite similar to the corresponding state constitutional provisions of California, Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina and Michigan. Calif. Const., Art. I, § 2; Wash. Const., Art. I, § 5; Pa. Const., Art. I, § 7; N.J. Const., Art. I, § 6; N.C. Const., Art. I, § 14; Mich. Const., Art. I, § 5.

The history of the adoption of our Connecticut bill of rights7 indicates that it was a response to the prevailing political sentiment of that time that the basic liberties of the people should be enshrined in a written constitution to ensure their protection from governmental infringement. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 715 n.1, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822 (1971); C. Rossiter, 1787 The Grand Convention (1966) pp. 302-303; Howard, The Road from Runnymede (1968) pp. 223-24. An opposing view was expressed that such a detailed specification of individual rights was superfluous and tended to abridge them, because all governmental powers not granted by the constitution were reserved to the people. Connect*61icut Journal, Sept. 8, 1818, p. 2, col. 1 (Remarks by Governor John Treadwell) (Remarks by Judge Mitchell). This debate parallels that which occurred at the time of the adoption of our federal constitution and the subsequent enactment of the first ten amendments thereto, our bill of rights. A. Hamilton, “The Federalist,” No. 84.8

It is evident that the concern which lead to the adoption of our Connecticut Declaration of Rights, as well as the bill of rights in our federal constitution, was the protection of individual liberties against infringement by government. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1978) p. 1147 n.1; see United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 771, 86 S. Ct. 1170, 16 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1966) (Harlan, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); State v. McKee, 73 Conn. 18, 27-29, 46 A. 409 (1900); Norwalk Street Ry. Co.’s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576, 586-89, 37 A. 1080 (1897); State v. Conlon, 65 Conn. 478, 489, 33 A. 519 (1895); see generally Collier, “The Connecticut Declaration of Rights Before the Constitution of 1818: A Victim of Revolutionary Redefinition,” 15 Conn. L. Rev. 87, 94-97 (1982); Berdon, “Protecting Liberty and Property under the Connecticut and Federal Constitutions: The Due Process Clauses,” 15 Conn. L. Rev. 41, 53-54 (1982); Purcell, Connecticut in Tran*62sition, supra. There is nothing in the history of these documents to suggest that they were intended to guard against private interference with such rights. Similarly, a review of their origin discloses no evidence of any intention to vest in those seeking to exercise such rights as free speech and petition the privilege of doing so upon property of others.

This court has never viewed constitutional language as newly descended from the firmament like fresh fallen snow upon which jurists may trace out their individual notions of public policy uninhibited by the history which attended the adoption of the particular phraseology at issue and the intentions of its authors. The faith which democratic societies repose in the written document as a shield against the arbitrary exercise of governmental power would be illusory if those vested with the responsibility for construing and applying disputed provisions were free to stray from the purposes of the originators. “If the words have a doubtful meaning, or are susceptible of two meanings, they should receive that which will effectuate the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the general intent of the instrument.” Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 625, 86 A. 597 (1913).

The plaintiffs rely upon the fact that the right of free speech in § 4: “Every citizen may freely speak . . .” and of petition in § 14: “The citizens have a right . . . to apply to those invested with the powers of government ... by petition . . .” are expressed in affirmative language creating such rights rather than as prohibitions upon the government like those contained in § 5: “No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press” and in the first amendment to our federal constitution: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech ... or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . . . .” We are not persuaded that these *63variations in phraseology are sufficient to indicate an intention to allow those rights to be exercised upon every property affording a suitable opportunity for their enjoyment against the objections of the owners. Although the guaranty of equal protection in § 20 of the Connecticut Declaration of Rights is stated in absolute terms similar to §§ 4 and 14, unlike its federal counterpart, § 1 of the fourteenth amendment, which is expressly directed against state action only, this court has concluded that both these provisions “are designed as a safeguard against acts of the state and do not limit the private conduct of individuals or persons.” Lockwood v. Killian, 172 Conn. 496, 501, 375 A.2d 998 (1977). There is no historical basis for reaching a different conclusion in respect to the scope of §§ 4 and 14.

The plaintiffs advance a further argument that to restrict the protection of free speech afforded by § 4 solely to instances of state interference would make that provision merely redundant of § 5, which is expressly directed against the state. Section 5, however, literally applies only to the passage of laws restraining freedom of speech or press and does not by its terms afford protection provided by § 4 against restrictions upon the exercise of those rights which government officials may impose whether or not sanctioned by law.9

*64Despite the unqualified language of §§ 4 and 14, the plaintiffs do not maintain that the rights referred to therein are so absolute that they can lawfully be exercised anywhere, as a kind of public easement upon all privately owned realty for use as a political forum. Their claim is presently limited to the large regional shopping center operated by the defendants which, they contend, has assumed a uniquely public character by virtue of its great economic, social and cultural impact upon the community. We are unable, however, to discern any legal basis distinguishing this commercial complex from other places where large numbers of people congregate, affording superior opportunities for political solicitation, such as sport stadiums, convention halls, theatres, country fairs, large office or apartment buildings, factories, supermarkets or department stores.

The plaintiffs wish to have us balance the importance of the rights of free speech and petition which they seek to exercise against the interest of the defendants in controlling and operating their private property. The trial court, Spada, J., concluded that experience during the six months that the plaintiffs had conducted their activities at the Mall pursuant to the injunction issued in Cologne I, Bieluch, J., demonstrated no substantial impact upon the revenues or business expectations of the defendants. As a result of the violent confrontation which occurred on May 22, 1983, however, the court, Ripley, J., found that there was a serious poten*65tial for harm to the interests of the defendants if the plaintiffs continued to use the interior of the Mall for their activities because of the efforts of other groups to enjoy the same privilege. The injunction was modified accordingly to restrict the plaintiffs to an exterior entranceway. It is not the role of this court to strike precise balances among the fluctuating interests of competing private groups which then become rigidified in the granite of constitutional adjudication. That function has traditionally been performed by the legislature, which has far greater competence and flexibility to deal with the myriad complications which may arise from the exercise of constitutional rights by some in diminution of those of others. Some of these complexities have been demonstrated in the present case by the events of May 22, 1983, which, for that day at least, unquestionably disrupted the normal flow of business at the Mall and exposed the defendants to substantial risks of property destruction and liability to persons who might have been injured. Unlike first amendment liberties which occupy a preferred status in our constitutional framework; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 509, 66 S. Ct. 276, 90 L. Ed. 265 (1946); Lockwood v. Killian, supra, 502; State v. McKee, supra, 27-28; property rights or economic interests have long been regarded as subject to reasonable regulation in promotion of the general welfare. For the court to assume such a regulatory function, however, would relegate the legislature to a subordinate role in our governmental scheme. Statutes would become largely obsolete if courts in every instance of the assertion of conflicting constitutional rights should presume to carve out in the immutable form of constitutional adjudication the precise configuration needed to reconcile the conflict. If, as the plaintiffs contend, the development of large surburban shopping centers has greatly diminished opportunities for political advocacy in the public streets of downtown areas and other public *66places, the problem should be presented to the legislature. We cannot presume that that body has any less concern for political liberty than this court.

As we have noted, the plaintiffs have not taken the extreme position which a literal reading of §§ 4 and 14 of article first might arguably warrant, that people seeking to exercise rights of free speech and petition have a constitutional right to do so wherever and whenever they please, but limit their claim to properties vested with a public character. Although we are under no legal constraint to follow Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S. Ct. 2219, 33 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1972), we approve the rejection in that decision of such a claim as applied to a shopping center: “Nor does property lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. . . . The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center.” Id., 569. If the furnishing of building permits, police protection and public transportation were deemed to constitute sufficient government involvement to transform the actions of the defendants in refusing the plaintiffs’ requests into those of public officials, as the dissenting opinion assumes, almost every improved property would be subject to the same burden the plaintiffs seek to impose upon the Mall.

There is no error on the plaintiffs’ appeals; there is error on the defendants’ cross-appeal from the original judgment and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendants.

In this opinion Healey and Covello, Js., concurred.

Peters, J.

(dissenting). The narrow issue in this case is whether private owners of a vast shopping center, having freely invited the presence of the public at large, *67may arbitrarily, absolutely and unconditionally exclude persons wishing peacefully to solicit signatures on political petitions and to distribute literature on political questions. In order to resolve that issue, we must determine a broader issue, the proper position of the right of political free speech under the constitution of Connecticut. This court has had no previous opportunity to explore the narrow issue, and little to explore the broader. Although it is therefore not surprising that we are in disagreement, I regret that the majority has chosen to narrow state constitutional rights to an extent supported neither by the language of our constitution nor by modern constitutional theorists. State courts today have the opportunity as well as the obligation, by virtue of our federal system, to begin to adapt state constitutional provisions to the issues presented by a society dominated by large industrial and commercial groups. Because I believe that the individual rights guaranteed by our state constitution’s Declaration of Rights have a greater priority in our constitutional framework than the majority is prepared to recognize, I must dissent. For me, it is of critical importance that the plaintiffs are seeking to exercise free speech which is political in its nature and therefore central to the very existence of a democratic society, and that the plaintiffs’ claim finds strong textual support in the language of article first, § 4, of our constitution. Although I therefore conclude that their claim should be substantively vindicated, I nonetheless would modify the judgment of the trial court, because I believe the remedy ordered by the trial court improperly and unnecessarily involved the trial court in regulation of the content of the plaintiffs’ speech and of the time, place and manner in which their speech may be exercised.

The facts found by the trial court in its memorandum of decision are not disputed in the majority opin*68ion. For present purposes, it bears emphasis that the conduct of these plaintiffs has always been entirely peaceful and that their presence has neither provoked untoward political responses nor adversely affected the defendants’ commercial activities. The unfortunate events which transpired in May, 1983, were in no way connected with the past or proposed conduct of the plaintiffs.1 Furthermore, authorized activities at West-farms Mall have never been entirely commercial. The Mall permits and sponsors various services and entertainments, such as health clinics, volunteer tax assistance facilities, informational programs, exhibitions, fashion shows, and concerts. The Mall’s management policy statement that excludes the plaintiffs’ peaceful petitioning expressly permits “labor activity.”2 Finally, the trial court expressly found that the facilities at the Mall provide a potential access to the public that is unmatched at other facilities which the defendants had contended were available as alternate sites for the plaintiffs’ activities. “The Mall,” in the words of the trial court, “has become the counterpart of the New England Green.”

*69I

Analysis of the rights of the parties in this case must begin with recognition of the central role assigned by constitutional theory to the rights of petitioning the government and of free speech about political issues. Constitutional theorists have long been engaged in vigorous debate over the legitimacy and the appropriate scope of judicial authority in constitutional decisionmak-ing. The range of their controversy is as broad as that which appears to divide the economists. One of the few points of general agreement, however, is that “there is something special about speech.” Bork, “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” 47 Ind. L.J. 1, 23 (1971).

An appropriate starting point for the relationship between free speech and constitutional government is Justice Brandéis’ concurrence in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927). There he wrote (p. 375): “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine .... They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew . . . that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the *70path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” As a well-known first amendment scholar has elaborated, the amendment “does not protect a ‘freedom to speak.’ It protects the freedom of those activities of thought and communication by which we ‘govern.’ It is concerned, not with a private right, but with a public power, a governmental responsibility.” Meiklejohn, “The First Amendment is an Absolute,” 1961 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245, 255.

Constitutional scholars of widely different persuasions agree that the “discovery and spread of political truth” is central to constitutional democracy. Professor (now Judge) Bork, a strict constructionist and an advocate of judicial restraint, although dissenting from part of the Brandéis argument for freedom of speech, agrees that political speech is a form of speech “that a principled judge can prefer to other claimed freedoms.” Bork, supra, 26. Professor (now Dean) Ely, a constitutional moderate who advocates limited constitutional adjudication designed to secure broad participation in the processes and distributions of government, recognizes that “courts should be heavily involved in reviewing impediments to free speech” because first amendment rights “are critical to the functioning of an open and effective democratic process.” J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust, p. 105 (1980). Professor Tribe, a constitutional activist who sees a role for freedom of speech beyond the political sphere, notes nonetheless that “freedom of speech is . . . central to the workings of a tolerably responsive and responsible democracy and ... at least some of the first amendment’s most convincing implictions follow directly from this perspective.” L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, p. 579 (1978).

*71While theoretical analysis has focused, for historical reasons, on the role of free speech under the first amendment to the United States constitution, the free speech provision of our own constitution has been held to embody the same understanding of the centrality of free speech to constitutional government. Our early case law stems from the time before incorporation of the first amendment into the fourteenth amendment came to dominate the field of protection of individual liberties. In State v. McKee, 73 Conn. 18, 28-29, 46 A. 409 (1900), this court stated: “The right to discuss public matters stands in part on the necessity of that right to the operation of a government by the people; but, with this exception, the right of every citizen to freely express his sentiments on all subjects stands on the broad principle which supports the equal right of all to exercise gifts of property and faculty in any pursuit in life, — in other words, upon the essential principles of civil liberty as recognized by our Constitution . . . . The general right to disseminate opinions on all subjects was probably specified mainly to emphasize the strong necessity to a free government of criticism of public men and measures.” Very recently in Grievance Committee v. Trantolo, 192 Conn. 27, 36, 470 A.2d 235 (1984), we noted the special protection afforded to an attorney’s publication that was political rather than commercial, when we said: “If the statement is political or ideological, it naturally enjoys the fullest protection under the first amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 4, of the Connecticut constitution.”

II

The state constitutional framework for protection of the right of free speech rests principally upon the provisions of article first, §§ 4 and 5 of the constitution of Connecticut. Section 4 states: “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all *72subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Section 5 states: “No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.” In addition, § 14 states: “The citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.” Read literally, these sections provide strong textual support for the plaintiffs’ peaceful exercise of their rights.

As the majority opinion concedes, the plaintiffs’ exercise of state constitutional rights is not foreclosed by the refusal of the federal courts to extend federal constitutional protection to expressive activity on private property. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980), expressly recognized “the authority of the State to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.”

The majority holds that the plaintiffs cannot rely upon §§ 4 and 14, because these provisions of our constitution impliedly require the plaintiffs to show that acts of the state, rather than the conduct of private persons, interfere with their exercise of expressive rights. The majority’s conclusion is based on three arguments: (1) the holdings of other state supreme courts interpreting similar state constitutional provisions are distinguishable; (2) the history of our state Declaration of Rights proves that its provisions were intended to protect individual liberties only against infringement by government; and (3) the balancing of state rights of free speech and petition against private rights of property is not a proper judicial function. I find these arguments unpersuasive.

*73A

A number of state supreme courts have interpreted their state constitutions, which contain language similar to §§ 4 and 14 of our constitution, to permit the free expression of political views without.a prior showing of state action. The leading case, Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 592 P.2d 341, 153 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980), is factually indistinguishable from the case presently before us. There the court held that the free speech and petition provisions of the California constitution protected the peaceful exercise of these rights in a large but privately owned shopping center. The plaintiffs in Robins were soliciting signatures on a petition to be sent to the White House in Washington in order to express their opposition to a United Nations resolution against “Zionism.” The Robins plaintiffs were afforded a right of access to the shopping center’s internal courtyard, even though the center was bordered on two sides by public sidewalks and streets. In the view of the California Supreme Court, the state constitution’s broad proclamation of speech and petition rights provided greater protection than the first amendment to the United States constitution. The state constitutional guarantees manifested a public interest in peaceful speech outweighing the desire of property owners for unlimited control over their property. This construction of the California constitution was accepted by the full court; the dissenters maintained only that the majority position violated federal constitutional guarantees protecting private property rights of the shopping center owner. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, as previously noted, concluded that there was no federal impediment to California’s application of California constitutional principles as interpreted by the California Supreme *74Court. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 88, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980).

The majority opinion in this case distinguishes Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center because the California constitution contains, in addition to guarantees of free speech and petition that are virtually identical to those found in our constitution, provisions for initiative, referendum and recall that we do not have. Those latter provisions were not, however, involved in Robins itself, since the Robins plaintiffs were not proposing changes in state law but were, instead, petitioning the federal government in order to influence federal policy.

Other state supreme courts have also recognized that state constitutional provisions like our own may afford protection not only against governmental or public bodies but, under appropriate circumstances, against private persons as well. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has held that state constitutional provisions may have a wider reach than the first amendment, because, in state cases, interpretation is not constrained by the principles of federalism and because state constitutions contain pro-visions separately guaranteeing individual rights and prohibiting governmental abridgement thereof. State v. Schmid, 84 N. J. 535, 559-60, 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S. Ct. 867, 70 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1982). In determining that a private university was obligated to permit on-campus distribution of political materials by an off-campus organization, the court necessarily relied upon its view of the university’s educational mission. The court could not, however, have reached that issue had it not first concluded that the absence of state action was not an absolute bar to its inquiry.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts came to a similar conclusion in interpreting its constitutional *75guarantee of free elections, again in the context of an attempted exercise of political speech at a large privately owned shopping center. Although the court chose to rely on the free election rather than on the free speech provision of the Massachusetts constitution,3 it based its decision on the absence of language limiting its scope to governmental action alone. The court held that, in the absence of an expressed state action requirement, there was “no reason to imply such a requirement, and thereby to force a parallelism with the Federal Constitution.” Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 88-89, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983). The court went on to broaden its holding to “reject any suggestion that the Declaration of Rights should be read as directed exclusively toward restraining government action.” Id., 89. Necessarily encompassed in that broader holding was the proposition that the right of free speech, found in article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, also has no state action constraints.

While these cases are not totally on all fours with the case presently before us, their reasoning is nonetheless apt. It is furthermore noteworthy that, except for one case, State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 273 S.E.2d 708 (1981), every recent state supreme court decision has followed the lead of Robins v. Prwneyard Shopping Center to afford some degree of protection for political speech even when the speaker is on private property. See, in addition to the cases cited above, Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 432 A.2d 1382 (1981); Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council, 96 Wash. 2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981).

*76B

Whether or not the decisions of other state supreme courts are distinguishable, it is indisputable that we are not bound by them. In the view of the majority, we should go a different route principally because the history of the adoption of our Connecticut Declaration of Rights demonstrates that the framers of the Connecticut constitution intended to protect individual liberties only from infringement by government and not from interference by private persons.

Although the concerns that marked the adoption of our constitution are admirably described in the majority opinion, I am unpersuaded that these concerns are entitled to the weight that the majority assigns to them. I am troubled about the extent to which the intent of the draftsmen, even of the draftsmen of a constitution, should be permitted to introduce ambiguity into constitutional language that is, contextually speaking, reasonably clear. I wonder, further, about the extent to which it is appropriate to extrapolate, from the draftsmen’s responses to concerns with which they were familiar, how they would have reacted to concerns entirely beyond their realm of experience.

As the majority opinion recognizes, on their face the relevant provisions of the Connecticut constitution afford protection for freedom of speech and for the right to petition without regard to the source of the interference with these constitutionally guaranteed rights. There is no mention of governmental action in either § 4 or § 14 of article first. By contrast, § 5 of article first expressly invokes state action when it states: “No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.” At the very least, the conjunction of §§ 4 and 5, both of which address freedom of speech, underscores that under our *77constitution as well as under the first amendment to the federal constitution, freedom of speech is “special” and is entitled to a preferred position over other, competing constitutional rights. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152-53 n.4, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. 1234 (1938).

When constitutional provisions, read in context with each other, guarantee constitutional rights, subject only to the explicit limitation that they shall not be abused, is it proper to add an additional limitation that the constitution itself does not contain? While the intent of the framers is an important resource to resolve ambiguity, it is not an appropriate resource to create ambiguity. As Dean Ely notes, it is important “to bring to the fore what seems invariably to get lost in excursions into the intent of the framers, namely that the most important datum bearing on what was intended is the constitutional language itself. ” (Emphasis in original.) J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust, p. 16 (1980). We have recognized the same rule of construction in Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 625, 86 A. 597 (1913), where we relied on 1 Story on the Constitution (5th Ed.) §§ 405, 407, to limit the role of evidence of the intent of the framers of the Connecticut constitution. Quoting Story, we held that where the words of the constitution “are plain, clear, and determinate they require no interpretation; and it should, therefore, be admitted, if at all, with great caution, and only from necessity, either to escape some absurd consequence, or to guard against some fatal evil. . . . Contemporary construction is properly resorted to, to illustrate and confirm the text, to explain a doubtful phrase, or to expound an obscure clause. . . . It can never abrogate the text, . . . it can never narrow down its true limitations, it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.”

These principles of construction would require, it seems to me, that the intent of the draftsmen would *78not supersede the clear language of the constitution itself unless the intent of the framers were indisputably clear with respect to the particular provision arguably subject to implied limitation. The case for deference to the draftsmen is not that strong here.

Any inference about the intent of the draftsmen is beset by logical difficulties. “[N]ot everyone will feel called upon to place in the ‘legislative history’ his precise understanding, assuming he has one, of the meaning of the provision for which he is voting or to rise to correct every interpretation that does not agree with his.” Ely, op. cit. 17; Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 B.U.L. Rev. 204, 214-15 (1980). Even if the meaning of the constitutional convention as a whole could be ascertained, that meaning, if not reflected in the words of the constitution itself, cannot be dispositive. “For as the constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to be conveyed.” T. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations * 66-67 (2d Ed. 1871), quoted in Ely, supra, 17-18.

Furthermore, the principal agenda of the constitutional convention of 1818 was to bring about a radical change not in personal freedoms, but in the basic organization of government. “Prior to 1818, the whole sovereign power was exercised by the people . . . through a body of magistrates chosen annually and deputies chosen semi-annually .... It was [a] new form of government that the people demanded and established in 1818. The idea of [the 1818] . . . consti*79tution was centered in the separation of judicial and legislative powers, and the grant of each power to a distinct magistracy. On this the fight for change of government was largely made.” Norwalk Street Ry. Co.’s Appeal, 69 Conn. 576, 586-87, 37 A. 1080 (1897). Such an agenda for structural change necessarily focuses attention on the grant of governmental powers rather than on the reservation of individual rights. To the limited extent that the drafters considered freedom of speech, their apparent concern was only to balance the liberty of speaking with the power of government to punish speech which is libelous. State v. McKee, 73 Conn. 18, 29, 46 A. 409 (1900); and see State v. Pape, 90 Conn. 98, 105, 96 A. 313 (1916). So limited a discussion can hardly be deemed to constitute a comprehensive contemporaneous construction either of the rights afforded by the Declaration of Rights or of the abuses that the Declaration forbids; it does not, for example, address the continued right of private parties to litigate privately a common law action for libel or slander.

Finally, and most significantly, the search for the intent of the framers is, in this case, inherently anachronistic. Of necessity, the constitution of 1818 was adopted in light of the ideologies and the practices, the politics and the economics, of that time. The source of interference with personal freedoms with which the draftsmen had had recent experience was the government. The society in which they lived was predominantly rural, marked by small towns, by country stores and village squares.4 I do not believe that we can be reasonably certain that the framers had any views, any intentions, about the proper role of free speech in a *80mobile urbanized society when what is at issue is the exercise of free speech in a vast privately owned shopping center located at the intersection of superhighways. If they understood a constitution in the same way as John Marshall interpreted it, only a year later, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 415, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), they would have recognized that “a constitution intended to endure for ages to come . . . [must] be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” See Munzer & Nickel, “Does the Constitution Mean What It Always Meant,” 77 Col. L. Rev. 1029, 1033, 1058-62 (1977).

For all of these reasons, I believe that the limitations which the majority seeks to import into the language of §§ 4 and 14 of article first cannot be justified by resort to history. The intentions of the framers are, at best, indeterminate, and therefore cannot override the language of the constitution itself.

C

If the plaintiffs have constitutionally cognizable claims, they have a right to have these claims adjudicated in this court. Courts that have the competence to determine whether an act of the legislature meets constitutional muster surely have the competence to determine whether private conduct is constitutionally suspect. Our constitutional review is not invariably limited to consideration of legislation. In assuring a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial, for example, we look directly to the underlying provisions of our constitution. State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 40-41, 463 A.2d 573 (1983); and see State v. Ubaldi, 190 Conn. 559, 572-75, 462 A.2d 1001 (1983). The issue is not whether this court, or the legislature, is the more zealous guar*81dian of political liberty; concededly, we all take the same oath to uphold constitutional rights. The question is rather whether these plaintiffs are constitutionally required to defer their claims until they succeed in getting on the legislative agenda. I know of no authority for such deferral of their constitutional claims.

Nor can the claims of these plaintiffs against these defendants be denied because their adjudication requires us to strike a balance among competing legitimate interests. Courts are continually called upon to draw lines, on a case-by-case basis. The absence of discernible bright lines is not unique to this litigation. Although we should exercise particular care in defining the limits of the constitutional rights that we recognize, we must nonetheless be faithful to our duty to implement the constitutional protections that our constitution provides.

I would therefore conclude that the provisions of §§ 4 and 14 of the Connecticut constitution may, in the proper circumstances, protect the political speech which the plaintiffs seek to exercise. The language of the constitution strongly supports their claim, and the history of the constitution does not conclusively refute it. Like the supreme courts of other jurisdictions, we should adjudicate this claim on the merits.

Ill

The claim of the plaintiffs that they may exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights of political free speech and petition on privately owned property is, as the majority recognizes, a limited claim. It is limited because the site in question is one which, as the trial court found, has assumed a uniquely public character by virtue of its great economic, social and cultural impact upon the community. It is limited because the plaintiffs do not seek unrestricted access, but take issue instead with the defendants’ assertion of an absolute, *82unconditional right to preclude their exercise of their constitutional rights. The majority opinion does not take direct issue with these limitations, or with this description of the plaintiffs’ claim. If there is factual and legal support for this limited claim, as I believe there is, then the plaintiffs have established their right to invoke the relevant provisions of our constitution’s Declaration of Rights.

In my view, the Connecticut constitution gives the plaintiffs the right to speak peacefully about their political concerns without regard to the presence of any special form of state action. Even if I am wrong about that proposition, however, these plaintiffs can still prevail because this record adequately demonstrates governmental involvement in the denial of their access to a political forum. I do not understand how the majority opinion, which interprets our constitution to require such governmental involvement, can fail to address this crucial issue.

If we are to import a state action requirement into the Connecticut constitution, we must recognize that its contours will necessarily differ from the state action concept that has developed under the constitution of the United States. In part, at least, the state action requirement is designed to address the demands of federalism, to create space for state regulation. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, pp. 1149-50 (1978). Because there is no “federalism” component to state action under state constitutions, any state standard for government involvement should be more flexible, and should require less definitive government action than is required under federal law. See Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 152, 160, 379 N.E.2d 1169, 408 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1978); Berdon, “Protecting Liberty and Property Under the Connecticut and Federal Constitutions: The Due Process Clauses,” 15 Conn. L. Rev. 41, 53-54 (1982).

*83The law of state action under the federal constitution nonetheless furnishes a useful point of departure. That law has, to date, developed no precise, rigid test, no unitary theory, for determining what conduct is governmental and what is private. Instead, the state action requirement reflects a balance in which a crucial factor is the substantive right which is sought to be exercised. “Whether governmental authority is so significantly involved in nominally 'private’ actions as to constitute state action is a determination Involving both the nature of the discrimination and the extent of the governmental involvement.” Lockwood v. Killian, 172 Conn. 496, 503, 375 A.2d 998 (1977); Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 172, 92 S. Ct. 1965, 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972); Tribe, op. cit. 1157-59. Just as state action will more readily be found for a claim of racial discrimination, as opposed to any other form of discrimination, so too the preferred position of freedom of speech entitles that claim to a special position in an assessment of state action. Lockwood v. Killian, supra, 502-503.

Viewed against the plaintiff’s preferred claim to speak freely on political questions, the defendants’ operation of their vast shopping center demonstrates significant government involvement. As in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 14-18, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948), the defendants rely on governmental institutions to enforce their privately drafted exclusionary “management policy.” As in Marsh v. Alabama 326 U.S. 501, 507-508, 66 S. Ct. 276, 90 L. Ed. 265 (1946), the defendants have created a public forum by the extent to which they have opened up their property for use by the public in general.5 As in Burton v. Wilming *84 ton Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 723-26, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1961), there is a relationship of interdependence between the defendants and the government, which furnishes them with building permits,* ****6 police patrols and public transportation. In their totality, these facts demonstrate sufficient state action for state constitutional purposes.

IV

The conclusion that the plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected presence at the defendants’ privately owned shopping center does not itself establish the extent of the plaintiffs’ rights. Their rights, though preferred, are not absolute, and must be balanced against the defendants’ rights to free speech and to reasonable use of their property. Although I would agree with the trial court’s determination that this balance in this case must be struck in the plaintiffs’ favor,71 believe that the trial court’s remedial approach excessively involved the court in the details of the plaintiffs’ speech and in the manner of its exercise.

*85In order to implement its conclusion that the defendants could not deprive the plaintiffs of all access to the shopping center for free speech purposes, the trial court should have enjoined the defendants from further enforcement of their existing “management policy.” The defendants’ policy should not have been permitted to continue in force because of its categorical and unconditional prohibition of the plaintiffs’ activities. Injunction of that policy was therefore required. Once this unconditional prohibition had been eliminated, however, the defendants should have been given the opportunity to develop reasonable time, place and manner limitations to regulate the plaintiffs’ presence. Unless and until it was faced with an urgent need for further intervention, the court should have refrained from prescribing the details of the plaintiffs’ presence or the content of the plaintiffs’ speech. Courts are better suited to the adjudication of constitutional rights than to the day by day regulation of shopping centers.

With modification of the order of injunctive relief, limiting the injunction to invalidation of the defendants’ “management policy,” I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this opinion Sponzo, J., concurred.

Opinion

KATZ, J.

The plaintiff, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO, appeals1 from the *263judgment of the trial court denying its request for injunctive relief. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants, Crystal Mall Associates, L.P., and its management company (defendant),2 from prohibiting its entry into the common areas of the Crystal Mall (mall), a privately owned shopping mall located in the town of Waterford, for the purpose of distributing literature and speaking to patrons concerning the issue of employees’ rights. The plaintiff claims that the defendant violated its right to freedom of speech under article first, §§ 43 and 5,4 of the constitution of Connecticut and its right to freedom of assembly under article first, § 14,5 of the constitution of Connecticut. Relying on this court’s decision in Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984), which concluded that our state constitution imposes a state action requirement in order to trigger the protection of free speech and assembly rights, the trial court, Quinn, J., determined that the defendant was a private actor, and therefore, not sub*264ject to the guarantees afforded by the state constitution. Accordingly, the trial court denied the injunction. Urging us to adopt a fact-specific, flexible approach, the plaintiff contends that our constitutional jurisprudence since Cologne dictates that we now inteipret our freedom of expression provisions as providing a less stringent view toward the state action requirement. The plaintiff also points us to those jurisdictions that have interpreted their free speech provisions as conferring broader protection than the federal constitution. We conclude, however, that, even if we were to accept the plaintiffs invitation to interpret our state constitution as providing for a more expansive interpretation of state action, the facts in the present case still would not permit the plaintiff to prevail. We therefore conclude that, in the present case, there is inadequate state action to trigger state constitutional protection, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record and a joint stipulation the parties submitted to the trial court reveal the following facts and procedural history. The dispute between the parties began on July 7, 1997, when the plaintiff filed a complaint arising from the defendant’s request that the plaintiff leave the Crystal Mall Hometown Fair (Hometown Fair),6 an event held on March 1, 1997. After a complaint by Filene’s, one of the mall’s tenant stores, mall staff had asked the members of the plaintiff union to leave the fair, and they had done so in a peaceful *265manner.7 Thereafter, the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from denying it access to and participation in any future fairs or similar events and from creating and enforcing any policy that would have the effect of denying the plaintiff access to such events. The plaintiff also sought an award of damages and costs, including attorney’s fees, based on the defendant’s violation of the plaintiffs state constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. On October 8, 1997, after a hearing on the matter, the trial court, Stengel, J., denied the application for temporary injunctive relief, stating that, on the basis of this court’s decision in Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 48, the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the constitutional issues raised, that the plaintiff had not sustained its burden of proof that there was irreparable harm and that the plaintiff had not presented evidence that the defendant had planned to hold future fairs.

Thereafter, on December 28, 2001, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that some of its members intended to enter the mall on January 9, 2002, “ ‘to distribute literature and talk with people in the mall concerning employee rights under the state and federal laws.’ ” In this letter, the plaintiff represented that its members would “ ‘be peaceful and limit their activity to the common areas of the mall and not the tenant stores.’ ” Additionally, the plaintiff asserted that the distribution of information was “ ‘not an organizational effort.’ ” By letter dated January 2, 2002, the defendant denied the plaintiff permission to enter the mall for the plaintiffs stated purposes.8

*266Thereafter, in an amended complaint filed on March 28, 2002, the plaintiff sought this permanent injunction to enjoin the defendant from denying access to the mall, in violation of the plaintiffs state constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly, as well as from creating or enforcing any policy that would have such an effect. In addition, the plaintiff sought costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the “court may deem necessary and proper.” On August 15, 2002, the trial court, Quinn, J., relying on this court’s decision in Cologne, denied the injunction. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the state constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly may not be exercised against a private property owner’s wishes when that property consists of a large regional shopping center. In addition, the court disagreed with the plaintiffs contention that this matter is factually distinguishable from Cologne because, in the present case, both the state and the town of Waterford had been involved directly in the construction of the mall. This appeal followed.9 Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

On appeal, the plaintiff asks us to recognize that the Connecticut constitution requires a lesser showing of state action in order to trigger protection of the rights to free speech and assembly than does the constitution of the United States. In so doing, the plaintiff urges us to adopt a fact-specific, flexible analysis in order to determine whether such a state action requirement has been met. The plaintiff urges us to then conclude that the defendant in the present case is a state actor that has violated the plaintiffs state constitutional rights to free speech and assembly.10 In response, the defendant *267contends that the present case is controlled by our decision in Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 63. The defendant further contends that, even under a more expansive definition of state action as suggested by the plaintiff, the evidence in the present case still does not establish state action. We agree with the defendant that, even using a lenient standard of state action, the defendant in the present case cannot be deemed a state actor.

I

The following additional facts are important to the disposition of this case. On July 9, 1979, an application was submitted to the Waterford planning and zoning commission seeking permission to construct the mall. The application stated that it was anticipated that “Crystal Mall, with all its amenities, probable connection to public transportation, its interior community spaces, and the comfortable controlled protection from the elements which the mall itself affords, will become the central focus of Waterford.” The application represented that the mall would encompass a large trade area that would include numerous towns, both in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and five military installations. According to the application, “[m]any people will find themselves spending greatly extended periods of time within the complex of stores, malls and department stores.” The application also stated that the mall would employ approximately 2000 to 2500 employees and even more during the holiday season. In addition, the application stated that “great benefits could be realized if the regional transit system . . . would incorpo*268rate [the mall] into its transportation network” and that “the combined traffic activity on Route 85 resulting from the site generated volumes and local area traffic cannot be accommodated on the existing roadway.” In order to accommodate the traffic issues, the application proposed reconstructing Route 85, by adding additional lanes, exit and entrance ramps, and traffic signals.

The construction of the mall required an extensive permit and approval process. On June 26, 1979, the Waterford conservation commission approved the application regarding construction of the mall, but with certain conditions, including the filing of a $75,000 performance bond. In a letter dated August 10, 1979, the state department of environmental protection addressed various environmental concerns, stated that it wanted to perform a field inspection of the area and informed the mall’s developers that permits would be required for the discharge of sanitary wastewater and stormwater.

The southeastern Connecticut regional planning agency informed the Waterford town planner that, based on its review of the developer’s application for the mall, in order to accommodate the new traffic that would be created by the mall, several specific changes should be made to the mall’s surrounding roads and highways, including Route 85 and Interstate 95. On October 24, 1979, the state traffic commission issued a certificate that would become valid when the mall’s developers completed several conditions, some of which had been suggested by the southeastern Connecticut regional planning agency, including: “(a) widening Route 85 to four lanes, with additional turn lanes and a raised median; (b) the installation of signal lights on Route 85 at the [Interstate 95] southbound ramps and certain driveways; (c) the modification of an existing signal at Dayton Place; (d) the construction of an operational lane on [Interstate 95] . . . to facilitate accelera*269tion, deceleration and merging movements; and (e) reconstruction of the [Interstate 95] off-ramp.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The state traffic commission also imposed certain requirements for the roadways within the mall complex.

The developer’s planning and zoning application requested several modifications of existing regulations, including a reduction in the size of parking spaces, an increase in building height and any aerials or antennas attached thereto, variations on landscaping and the removal of certain construction restrictions. On November 26, 1979, the planning and zoning commission approved the developer’s application for the mall subject to certain conditions. The approval included restriction on building sizes, landscaping, the placement of traffic islands and pedestrian walkways, and several off-site traffic improvements of the type already described in this opinion.

In an interim report, commenting on the impact that the construction of the mall would have on the town of Waterford’s fire services, the chairman of the Waterford board of fire commissioners stated that the impact would be “extensive” and would require “substantial increases” in the fire commission’s budget. The chairman further stated that additional staff and equipment, including a new $250,000 aerial ladder truck, would be required. On May 10, 1984, the fire marshal communicated to the town planner, by letter, regarding certain safety conditions that were required to be in place in time for the proposed early opening of three of the mall’s anchor stores.11 In addition, the mall was required to install radio receivers compatible with fire company transmitters.

Murray J. Pendleton, a sergeant in the support services division of the Waterford police department, *270reported to the town planner that traffic control signals needed to be in place and operational before the opening of the mall and that emergency parking spaces should be established near major entrances of the mall to be used by fire and police officers. On July 19, 1984, the Waterford deputy chief of police and Pendleton conducted an inspection of the mall. Pendleton reported to the planning and zoning commission that there were a number of problems that needed to be corrected.

The application to the planning and zoning commission indicated that the Waterford chief of police believed that the mall “would necessitate an increase in the [d]etective [division [staff] due to the resultant increase of bad checks, shoplifting, larceny, and burglaries . . . [and] that there would be an increase in motor vehicle accidents, due to the larger volumes of traffic.”

On October 22, 1984, the planning and zoning commission met and voted to extend the mall’s temporary certificate of zoning compliance and to require one of the mall’s anchor stores to provide a $10,000 forfeiture bond to cover certain work that had not been completed. At this same meeting, the fire marshal reported that the replacement of the main fire panel needed to be completed in one of the anchor stores and that a final inspection had to be made by the fire marshal, the zoning enforcement officer, the town planner and the police department before that store’s opening. In addition, the planning and zoning commission approved the defendant’s request to amend a zoning regulation that concerned the sale of alcoholic beverages, in order to exempt liquor sales outlets from the distance requirement when they are located in an approved regional shopping center such as the mall. A few days later, on October 24, 1984, the planning and zoning commission wrote a letter detailing a number of items that needed *271to be completed prior to the expiration of the temporary certificates of zoning compliance issued for the mall and its anchor stores. On January 21, 1985, subject to the condition that the mall submit a $30,000 bond to cover the cost of some remaining landscaping and the removal of a house that had served as an office during the mall construction process, the planning and zoning commission voted in favor of the mail’s request for a final certificate of occupancy.

Since the mall opened, there has been further state and municipal agency “involvement” with the mall. For example, the town planner notified mall management that the permit issued by the conservation commission required that a contact person be designated to whom the commission could address problems. Also, at the police department’s request, the mall was to contain a room or office to be used for detention purposes and first aid practices. Since July 19, 2001, police officers have had access to a room at the mall for “writing reports affiliated with activity at the mall, such as shoplifting, juvenile referral or locating a lost child or car and for interviewing people or suspects.” The police chief has directed the assignment of police officers to the mall “as often as schedules and manpower and other departmental responsibilities allowed.”12 The mall is located in the “north patrol” zone of Waterford. Therefore, a police officer “could be assigned [from the mall] to other incidents with[in] the [n]orth [p]atrol, as required.” During the holiday period, which begins the day after Thanksgiving and runs through the day after New Year’s Day, the police chief assigns an officer on a “time and one-half’ basis for the purpose of devoting extra patrol to the mall and other area stores.

Currently, the mall is an enclosed shopping center that includes four anchor stores as well as 130 specialty *272stores, a food court, and common areas consisting of walkways, concourses and several seating areas. The common areas are open to the general public free of charge, but mall management reserves the right to preclude persons “if their presence is deemed by management to be incompatible with the business purposes of the [m]all.” In the past, particular civic organizations have been allowed access to the mall’s common areas, but management has reserved the right to exclude any group that, “in management’s opinion, may be detrimental” to “enhanc[ing] the goodwill . . . [and] business mission of the [m]all.” Various groups and organizations previously have been granted access to the mall’s common areas, including: American Business Women’s Association, Niantic Bay Chapter; American Red Cross; Eastern Connecticut Chapter #196, Military Order of the Purple Heart; Griswold Friends of Music; Independent Beauty Consultants; Oak Grove Montessori School; Sierra Club of Southeastern Connecticut; and WCNI Radio.

II

As a threshold matter, we address our standard of review. The issue of whether the conduct of a private actor constitutes state action is a question of law. See State v. Lasaga, 269 Conn. 454, 463-64, 848 A.2d 1149 (2004). Consequently, our review of the trial court’s determination of that issue is plenary. Id., 463.

Our analysis begins with a brief review of this court’s decision in Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 48. In Cologne, the plaintiffs, the Connecticut National Organization for Women and one of its members, sought permission to solicit shoppers at the West-farms Mall, which is located partly in the town of Farmington and partly in the town of West Hartford, to sign petitions in support of the proposed equal rights amendment to the federal constitution. Id., 51. As in the present *273case, the Westfarms Mall permitted various activities on its premises, including informational programs and various exhibitions and other events. Id. In addition, the Westfarms Mall was served by several major traffic arteries, and public transportation to the mall regularly was provided. Id. The plaintiffs in Cologne contended, first, that our state constitutional provisions, unlike their federal counterparts, express affirmative rights to free speech and assembly not reliant solely upon government interference. See id., 62-63. Therefore, the plaintiffs requested that this court engage in a balancing test between the plaintiffs’ rights and the interest of the defendant mall owners in controlling and operating their private property. Id., 64. In the alternative, the plaintiffs argued that the Westfarms Mall was a state actor, because it “ha[d] assumed a uniquely public character by virtue of its great economic, social and cultural impact upon the community.” Id., 64. After reviewing the language and histoiy of our state constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of expression from governmental regulation, this court concluded that those provisions were “designed as a safeguard against acts of the state and do not limit the private conduct of individuals or persons.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 63. The court further concluded that the public use of a private shopping mall did not transform the mall owners’ refusal to allow political speech within the mall into state action. Id., 64-66; see Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1, 20, 678 A.2d 1267 (1996).

It is well settled that there is no right under the first amendment to the United States constitution for a person to use a privately owned shopping center as a forum to communicate without the permission of the property owner. Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569, 92 S. Ct. 2219, 33 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1972). A state, however, may adopt greater protection for free expression on private property, so long as such protection does not *274conflict with any federally protected property right of the owners of private shopping centers. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980) (“[o]ur reasoning in Lloyd [Corp., Ltd.], however, does not . . . limit the authority of the [s]tate to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own [constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the [federal [cjonstitution”). As this court noted in Cologne, the “invitation to state courts to construe state constitutional guarantiees] to enhance freedom of expression above the minimum federal constitutional level in the context of access to shopping centers for political propagandizing efforts has occasioned some remarkably close divisions of opinion among the judges who have considered the matter. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 592 P.2d 341, 153 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1979) [four to three decision]; Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983) [same]; Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, 128 Mich. App. 649, 341 N.W.2d 174 (1983) [two to one decision] [aff'd, 423 Mich. 188, 378 N.W.2d 337 (1985) (en banc)] . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 58. The decision in Cologne was also made by a divided court. See id., 66.

Since the decision in Cologne, courts in other jurisdictions that have considered this issue overwhelmingly have chosen not to interpret their state constitutions as requiring private property owners, such as those who own large shopping malls, to permit certain types of speech, even political speech, on their premises. See Citizens for Ethical Government, Inc. v. Gwinnett Place Associates, L.P., 260 Ga. 245, 245-46, 392 S.E.2d 8 (1990) (recognizing that shopping malls “represent a fertile potential source of signatures,” but stating that such convenient access to large number of shoppers *275“does not create a constitutional right of access to private property for political activity”); People v. DiGuida, 152 Ill. 2d 104, 129, 604 N.E.2d 336 (1992) (concluding that freestanding grocery store was not public or quasi-public entity and therefore defendant’s speech not protected); West Des Moines v. Engler, 641 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Iowa 2002) (stating that, even if malls have supplanted public streets as suitable places to gain access to people, that fact “does not convert privately owned and operated business locations into public places”); Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, supra, 423 Mich. 212 (holding that Michigan’s constitution is “a shield against the actions of the state,” not “a sword by individuals against individuals, ” and rejecting argument that large shopping centers should be exempt from state action requirement); State v. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d 793, 794, 802 (Minn. 1999) (noting lack of evidence that largest shopping center in United States enjoyed “power, property and prestige” of state or city even though significant public financing was used to develop mall, state and local government regulations governed construction of mall, mall made space available in basement for police, and mall leased space to two public entities—post office and alternative school); SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496, 506, 488 N.E.2d 1211, 1213, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (“To be sure, the shopping mall has taken on many of the attributes and functions of a public forum, as the record demonstrates, but the characterization or the use of property is immaterial to the issue of whether [s]tate action has been shown. Nor can the nature of property transform a private actor into a public one . . . .” [Citations omitted.]); State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 178, 273 S.E.2d 708 (1981) (declining to protect defendant’s actions of soliciting signatures for petition against draft in mall parking lot under state constitution’s freedom of expression provision); Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco, 68 Ohio St. 3d 221, 223, *276626 N.E.2d 59 (holding that protection afforded by free speech provision of Ohio constitution is no broader than that of first amendment to federal constitution in cases involving privately owned shopping centers), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 933, 115 S. Ct. 329, 130 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1994); Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or. 38, 65-66, 11 P.3d 228 (2000) (overruling Lloyd Corp. v. Whiffen, 315 Or. 500, 849 P.2d 446 [1993], which had granted public access to large shopping mall over private property owner’s objection for purpose of soliciting signatures on initiative petitions); Western Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 512 Pa. 23, 37, 515 A.2d 1331 (1986) (holding that, although Pennsylvania constitution provides more expansive protection of free speech than federal constitution, it does not confer right to solicit signatures for gubernatorial candidate’s nominating petition in privately owned shopping mall); Charleston Joint Venture v. McPherson, 308 S.C. 145, 150-51, 417 S.E.2d 544 (1992) (rejecting argument that shopping mall was functional equivalent of public forum); South-center Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy Committee, 113 Wash. 2d 413, 425-26, 780 P.2d 1282 (1989) (declining invitation to drop state action requirement in favor of “balancing test,” under which court would weigh free speech interests against private property interests of mall owner);13 Jacobs v. Major, 139 *277Wis. 2d 492, 524, 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (finding no state action and noting that “[i]t is clear that malls . . . [cannot] be said to have an essentially public function. Malls, shopping centers, department stores, and specialty stores exist for primarily one function: profit for their owners. The public nature of their business is a byproduct . . . .”); see also Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee, 159 Ariz. 371, 375-76, 767 P.2d 719 (App. 1998) (Arizona Court of Appeals recognizing that, while Arizona’s constitutional free speech provision “may be more extensive” than first amendment to federal constitution, defendant failed to establish that state’s provision “restraints] private conduct”; also rejecting argument that large shopping centers are functional equivalents of public forums).14

In contrast, only five states—California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington—currently hold that a state may require private shopping mall owners to permit some form of political activity in common areas of the mall.15 As we noted in Cologne, “[b]oth the California and Washington decisions rely in part upon the highly significant role which initiative, referendum and recall sponsored directly by the citizenry have played in the constitutional schemes of those states, and the practical importance of access to large congre*278gations of voters in order to obtain signatures on petitions used to implement those rights. [See Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, supra, 23 Cal. 3d 907-908; Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council, 96 Wash. 2d 230, 240, 635 P.2d 108 (1981).] 16 The Massachusetts decision was expressly limited to the solicitation of signatures needed by political candidates for access to the ballot and relied, not upon its freedom of speech provision, but upon a state constitutional guarantiee] of an equal right to elect officers and to be elected, for public employments. [See Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., supra, 388 Mass. 91-93.]” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 58-59.

In Bock v. Westminster Mall Co., 819 P.2d 55, 56 (Colo. 1991), the Colorado Supreme Court held that its state constitution protected political leafletting in a large shopping mall. In so concluding, the court viewed the mall, which enjoyed a “prominent location in the City [of Westminster (city)] across the street from the City Hall” as being so entangled with the government that there was sufficient state action to trigger the protection of Colorado’s constitutional free speech provision.17 Id., 57. Specifically, the court explained that “[w]here governmental entities or public monies are shown by the facts to subsidize, approve of, or encourage private interests and such private interests happen also to restrict the liberty to speak and to dissent, this court may find that such private restrictions run afoul *279of the protective scope of [Colorado’s free speech clause]. It is possible for interests, otherwise private, to bear such a close relationship with governmental entities or public monies that such interests are affected with a public interest. Moreover, with or without the benefit of that relationship, a private project may develop and operate in a manner such that it performs a virtual public function.” Id., 60.

Noting that its finding of governmental involvement in the case was not predicated on any single factor, the court in Bock found significant the city’s $2 million purchase, financed through the sale of municipal bonds, of the street and sewer improvements that initially had been paid for by the mail’s developer. Id., 61. The court also was persuaded by the fact that the city operated a police “substation” in the mall. Id. From the substation, the police responded to complaints throughout the city. The court reasoned that, because the mall provided the space free of rent, the mall was providing a municipal service. In addition, the court noted the presence of two to four city police officers routinely patrolling the common areas of the mall. Id. The court further identified a “highly visible governmental presence” in the mall, consisting of Army, Navy and Marine Corps recruiting offices, as well as voter registration drives conducted by the county clerk. Id., 62. Finally, the court expressed its belief that the mall functioned “as the equivalent of a downtown business district” and thus concluded that the mall constituted a public forum. Id.

In New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 333, 650 A.2d 757 (1994), cert. denied sub nom. Short Hill Associates v. New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East, 516 U.S. 812, 116 S. Ct. 62, 133 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that regional and community shopping centers must permit leafletting *280on “societal issues” because, “[a]though the ultimate purpose of these shopping centers is commercial, their normal use is all-embracing, almost without limit, projecting a community image, serving as their own communities, encompassing practically all aspects of a downtown business district, including expressive uses and community events.” Applying a multifactored approach that it first had enunciated in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 563, 423 A.2d 615 (1980),18 appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S. Ct. 867, 70 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1982), the court found that several elements supported its conclusion that the malls in question, although privately owned property, were nonetheless subject to the state’s constitutional free speech guarantee.19 New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., supra, 362. First, the court took expensive note of the open and inviting nature of malls, noting that, although the primary purpose of the shopping centers may be profit, the “all-inclusiveness” of the property invites the public to do more than just shop. Id., 357-58. “The activities and uses, the design of the property, the open spaces, the non-retail activities, the expressive uses, all are designed to make the [shopping] centers attractive to everyone, for all purposes, to make them a magnet for all people, not just shoppers. The hope is that once *281there they will spend. The certainty is that if they are not there they will not.” Id., 358.

The New Jersey Supreme Court also took note of the fact that, in addition to the implicit invitation that was communicated by the design and use of the shopping centers, some of the malls in question explicitly authorized certain kinds of speech, such as that which occurred at community desks or booths, as well as political speech at voter registration drives and candidate appearances. Id., 358-60. In its opinion, the court documented the rise of the large privately owned shopping mall and the converse decline of the downtown business districts; id., 344-47; and finally concluded that any harm to the business interests of the mall that came from leaf letting could be mitigated by the proper adoption of rules and regulations concerning the time, place and manner of such leafletting. Id., 361-62.

Ill

The plaintiff in the present case does not request that we overturn our ruling in Cologne that the Connecticut constitution requires state action, but instead urges us to decide a question not addressed by that decision: whether the provisions of our constitution are satisfied by a showing of less state action than what generally has been required under their federal counterparts.20 *282The plaintiff contends that the absence of federalism concerns,21 especially in light of the “increasing tendency of this court in the years since Cologne to protect constitutional rights to speech,” favors a more expansive view of state action. The plaintiff argues that since Cologne, decisions by this court have adopted an approach to free speech analysis that is far more protective of constitutional rights than that employed in Cologne.

Specifically, the plaintiff calls our attention to State v. Linares, 232 Conn. 345, 379-81, 655 A.2d 737 (1995), in which we adopted a “fact-specific, flexible” approach22 for claims involving restrictions of speech on public property despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court no longer utilized such an approach. See Leydon v. Greenwich, 257 Conn. 318, 347-49, 777 A.2d 552 (2001) (discussing this court’s analysis in Linares). In Linares, we recognized the important value of the freedom of speech under the state constitution and held that article first, §§ 4 and 5, were not subject to the same stringent limitations as would be required under a federal first amendment analysis. State v. Linares, supra, 380-83. As the defendant notes, how*283ever, in Linares, the issue was whether the defendant’s free speech rights on the public property where she was arrested had been impaired. Id., 379. That case, therefore, is of limited value in determining whether private property has, by some involvement or relationship with government, been transformed into public property.

The plaintiff nonetheless ar gues that the true precedential value of Linares is this court’s rejection of a categorical bright-line test in favor of a fact-specific balancing approach,23 as well as its willingness to revive analytical approaches that are not currently in vogue.24 In this vein, the plaintiff urges us to adopt the approach taken in Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Dept., 607 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1979), in which a former volunteer fireman sued the volunteer fire department, its chief and the members of its executive committee, alleging that his suspension and dismissal violated his right to free speech under the constitution of the United States. Janusaitis involved, in part, the issue of whether the plaintiff had alleged sufficient state action to implicate the first amendment. Instead of employing one bright-*284line test, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals engaged in what has become known as “meta-analysis.” Id., 23; see R. Krotoszynski, “Back to the Briarpatch: An Argument in Favor of Constitutional Meta-Analysis in State Action Determinations,” 94 Mich. L. Rev. 302 (1995). That type of analysis involves the use of more than one type of test in order to determine whether, under the particular facts of a case, there is sufficient state action. R. Krotoszynski, supra, 304 and n. 15. In Janusaitis, the court analyzed the plaintiffs claim under a combination of two distinct federal tests—the “public function” test, in which the inquiry focuses on “the nature of the function performed” by a private actor, and asks whether, historically, such a function has been reserved exclusively to the government, and the “symbiotic relationship” test, in which the inquiry focuses on the degree of government involvement and the extent to which the state “must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Janusaitis v. Middlebury Volunteer Fire Dept., supra, 23. According to the plaintiff in the present case, the court’s willingness in Janusaitis to rely on an amalgamation of federal schemes, ultimately to conclude that the defendants were state actors, is consistent with our fact-specific approach in Linares and, therefore, an appropriate way to analyze the state action issue presented here.25

Similarly, the plaintiff also directs our attention to Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School *285 Athletic Assn., 531 U.S. 288, 121 S. Ct. 924, 148 L. Ed. 2d 807 (2001), which, the plaintiff contends, heralds a rejection of any bright-line test that the Supreme Court has relied upon in the past in favor of a fact-specific balancing approach. In Brentwood Academy, the court engaged in an extensive factual examination of the relationship between the defendant, a statewide association incorporated to regulate interscholastic athletic competition among public and private secondary schools, and the state before concluding that the defendant was a state actor for purposes of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted: “What is fairly attributable [as state action] is a matter of normative judgment, and the criteria lack rigid simplicity. From the range of circumstances that could point toward the [s]tate behind an individual face, no one fact can function as a necessary condition across the board for finding state action; nor is any set of circumstances absolutely sufficient . . . .’’Id., 295. Referring to previously enunciated state action standards, the court further stated that “[w]hen . . . the relevant facts show persuasive entwinement . . . the implication of state action is not affected by pointing out that the facts might not loom large under a different test.” Id., 303.

According to the plaintiff, regardless of whether the analysis is characterized as one of the aforementioned bright-line federal standards, Brentwood Academy’s “entwinement” test, a “meta-analysis” as in Janusaitis, or simply a “fact-specific” approach, such as that used in Colorado and New Jersey, the result is the same: a review of the totality of the circumstances that, in the present case, ultimately demonstrates that the defendant is a state actor for purposes of our constitution and, therefore, unconstitutionally refused the plaintiff access to the mall. Even if we were to conclude, however, that our state action requirement is more expan*286sive than the current federal standard, under any of the various alternative approaches we have discussed in this opinion, we conclude that the facts in the present case still do not rise to the level of constituting state action.

IV

Under Cologne, as in the overwhelming majority of our sister jurisdictions, the size of the mall, the number of patrons it serves, and the fact that the general public is invited to enter the mall free of charge do not, even when considered together, advance the plaintiffs cause in converting private action into government action. “[Property [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. . . . The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modem shopping center. ... If the furnishing of building permits, police protection and public transportation were deemed to constitute sufficient government involvement to transform the actions of the defendants in refusing the plaintiffs’ requests into those of public officials . . . almost every improved property would be subject to the same burden the plaintiffs seek to impose upon the [m]ail.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cologne v. Westfamns Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 66.

The plaintiff argues, however, that our state constitution permits a finding of state action based upon the contacts between the government and the private business owner present in this case, even though such contacts would not be sufficient to establish state action under the first amendment. For example, the plaintiff contends that the town of Waterford and the state were “closely involved in the constmction and development of the mall,” including the alteration of Route 85, the *287construction of an additional lane on Interstate 95 to accommodate those exiting to the mall and the reconstruction of the Interstate 95 off-ramp. The plaintiff also points out that various zoning regulations were modified to accommodate the mall, including those which limited the height of the mall, required a certain size parking space and restricted the proximity of liquor sales outlets. Id. The plaintiff further points to all of the various state and municipal agencies that inspected the premises and imposed prerequisites to the mail’s opening. Finally, the plaintiff puts great weight on the fact that the presence of the mall resulted in a “ ‘substantial’ ” impact on the fire department’s budget and on the fact that the police department patrols the mall and its surrounding area and has use of a room inside the mall for limited police-related activities.26

As our recitation of the facts indicates, a number of town and state officers, departments and agencies were consulted in connection with the construction and opening of the mall, including: the state traffic commission, the state department of transportation, the state department of environmental protection, the state department of public health, the Waterford town planner, the Waterford department of public works, the Waterford board of police commissioners, and the Waterford fire commission. There is nothing in the record before us, however, to suggest that such involvement on the part of these agencies was unusual or extensive, particularly for a large commercial property. As the International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc., explains in its amicus brief, submitted in support of the defendant, any commercial development anywhere in this country has to comply with similar regulations.

*288Specifically, for example, the parties’ stipulation reveals that neither the mall nor any other commercial business in the community is billed for general police patrol services, unless it is a specific request for an extra duty job. Likewise, the state fire code applies to all municipalities within the state.27 Therefore, all similarly situated commercial developments would be treated uniformly, and we simply do not see, based on the facts presently before us, how the mall enjoyed a “level of governmental assistance far beyond that enjoyed by the owners of other developed property.” There is no evidence that the mall has received benefits that other private properties have not received; in fact, there is no evidence at all regarding the practices of other commercial developers or the regulations that govern their projects. We recognize that the larger the construction project, the more contacts there are likely to be, but, in our view, the number of meetings or permits required does not serve to change the legal status of the party by transforming it into a state actor for purposes of a constitutional analysis. From the record before us, therefore, “[w]e are unable ... to discern any legal basis distinguishing this commercial complex from other places where large numbers of people congregate . . . such as sport stadiums, convention halls, theatres, country fairs, large office or apartment buildings, factories, supermarkets or department stores.” Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 64.

The plaintiff points to the five jurisdictions that currently conclude that a state may require private shop*289ping mall owners to permit some form of political activity in common areas of the mall, relying heavily on Bock v. Westminster Mall Co., supra, 819 P.2d 55, which bears the closest factual resemblance to the circumstances in the present case. Specifically, the plaintiff points out the expansive size of both the mall in Bock and the mall at issue here. In both malls, the common areas are open to the public free of charge and the mall management has allowed, and even invited, certain civic and nonprofit groups to disseminate information to mall shoppers. The plaintiff also points to the existence of a police “substation” at the mall, which it argues is similar to the one in Bock. From our review of the record, however, the area for police use at the mall, whatever its exact nature, is entirely distinguishable from the police “substation” in Bock. As the parties’ stipulation indicates, the police merely have “access” to a room for the purpose of “writing reports affiliated with activity at the mall . . . and for interviewing people or suspects.” Without more detailed information, we cannot agree that such use of a room rises to the level of what we typically understand a police substation to involve—a place where almost all of the work entailed in police business could be conducted. In addition, unlike what appears to be the case in Bock, here there is no exclusive permanent police presence. Instead, officers are assigned to the mall as part of a patrol zone. Even the extra officer assigned to the mall during the holiday period patrols more than just the mall; that officer also is responsible for the safety and security of surrounding area stores. More importantly, however, we note that there is no evidence that any of the numerous changes to the land upon which the mall sits or the roads that surround it were purchased or paid for by the town or the state,28 unlike the situation *290in Bock, wherein the city had purchased, via the sale of municipal bonds, street and sewer improvements that initially had been paid for by a private developer.

Even taking into account those factors that the plaintiff propounds, we fail to see how the defendant in the present case could be deemed a state actor. To conclude that the minimal state involvement present in this case was sufficient to constitute state action, we would have to disregard much of the reasoning in Cologne that differentiated between state and private action, essentially eviscerate Cologne’s conclusion that the public use of a private shopping mall did not transform the mall owners’ refusal to allow political speech within the mall into state action, and depart drastically from the case law, relying in part on Cologne, in the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions. See footnote 14 of this opinion. We do not, however, foreclose the possibility that a proper interpretation of the Connecticut constitution could lead to the conclusion that our state action requirement is more expansive than its federal counterpart. After all, “[w]e have . . . determined in some instances that the protections afforded to the citizens of this state by our own constitution go beyond those provided by the federal constitution, as that document has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112, 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166, 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36, 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 160, 579 A.2d 58 (1990). Thus, should an appropriate case present itself, we may reconsider the issue; see, e.g., State v. Hinton, 227 Conn. 301, 331-32, n.27, 630 A.2d 593 (1993); State v. Avis, 209 Conn. 290, *291297 n.6, 551 A.2d 26 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1097, 109 S. Ct. 1570, 103 L. Ed. 2d 937 (1989); using the factors we enunciated in State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684-85, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), to guide our decision.29 We therefore leave for another day the determination of the exact contours of our state action doctrine, and thus, whether to deviate from the federal model.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

Katz, J.

The defendant, Kathaleen Linares, challenges the constitutionality of General Statutes § 2-ld (a) (2) (C) and (E),1 which prohibit intentional interference *348with the legislative process. After being charged with interfering with the legislative process in violation of § 2-ld, 2 the defendant moved to dismiss the information, claiming that the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to the facts of her case, in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution3 and the constitution of Con*349necticut, article first, §§ 2, 4, 5, 9 and 14.4 The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.5 The defendant subsequently entered a written plea of nolo contendere conditional on her right to appellate review of the denial of her motion to dismiss pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a and Practice Book § 4003.6 The *350trial court found the defendant guilty as charged in the long form information and fined her $90.

The defendant appealed from that judgment to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of conviction under § 2-1d (a) (2) (C) and reversed the judgment of conviction under § 2-1d (a) (2) (E). State v. Linares, 32 Conn. App. 656, 674, 630 A.2d 1340 (1993). The Appellate Court concluded that § 2-1d (a) (2) (E) prohibits constitutionally protected conduct, and invalidated that provision as unconstitutionally overbroad under the first amendment to the United States constitution. Id., 668. The Appellate Court, however, concluded that, because § 2-1d (a) (2) (C), “does not involve protected speech, we need not analyze either the fed*351eral or state constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of expression.” Id., 672. Further, the Appellate Court stated that “[b]ecause we conclude that [subdivision (2) (C)] does not involve protected speech and [subdivision (2) (E)] is void for overbreadth [under the federal constitution], we need not determine if the state constitution affords greater free speech protection than the federal constitution.” Id., 672 n.13. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Schaller agreed that subdivision (2) (E) is unconstitutional and that subdivision (2) (C) passes constitutional muster, but only after he first determined that subdivision (2) (C) warranted free speech analysis and then analyzed it under the Connecticut constitution, which in his view “encompasses a broader spectrum of speech protections than those afforded under the first amendment.” Id., 676 (Schaller, J., concurring).

We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal on the issues of the statute’s constitutionality both on its face and as applied to the defendant.7 We also granted the state’s petition for certification to cross appeal on the issue of whether subdivision (2) (E) is overbroad in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution.8 We agree with the *352Appellate Court’s conclusion as to subdivision (2) (C), but reject its determination that subdivision (2) (E) is void for overbreadth. Further, although we concur in the Appellate Court’s conclusion as to subdivision (2) (C), we disagree with its analysis of the defendant’s claims pertaining to that subdivision.

The videotape and audio cassette recording in the record of this case demonstrate the following undisputed facts.

The occasion was Governor William A. O’Neill’s budget address to the General Assembly in the Hall of the House of Representatives. The governor, Lieutenant Governor Joseph Fauliso and other state officials were on the podium. The lieutenant governor introduced the governor, and the audience applauded, with some whistling, for thirty-four seconds. The governor then spoke without interruption for approximately two minutes, when his speech was interrupted by applause and whistles for approximately twenty-two seconds.9 He then continued speaking without interruption for approximately four minutes, when he was again interrupted by applause and whistles for approximately seventeen seconds. He then continued speaking for approximately two minutes, when he was interrupted by applause and whistles for approximately eighteen seconds. He then continued speaking for approximately one minute, when the incident in question occurred.

*353The defendant and others were in the gallery of the Hall of the House. The gallery is located directly behind and above the podium, and is the only place in the Hall where members of the public, not otherwise permitted to be either on the floor of the House or on the podium itself, are permitted.10 It is obvious that anything of any significance that occurred in the front part of the gallery, at the railing overlooking the podium, was within the line of vision of persons in the Hall, who generally faced the podium as the governor delivered his speech.

The defendant unfurled a large pink banner that was tied to the railing with string or rope. Gauging by its comparison to the people behind it, we estimate the size of the banner to be approximately 6 feet by 9 feet. On the banner, within a triangle, was the legend, in large block letters: “WE DEMAND LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS, BILL.” The content of this message had nothing to do with the content of the governor’s speech, either generally or at that particular moment; the speech was devoted to budgetary matters. Simultaneously, the defendant and others chanted or shouted in loud voices, “gay rights lesbian rights,” over and over again without stopping.

The chanting and the presence of the unfurled banner, facing the audience in the Hall of the House, continued unabated for approximately one minute and twenty-five seconds. During this period the governor stopped speaking and the audience can be seen on the videotape looking up in the direction of the banner and the chanting. Also, at some point after the banner was unfurled and the chanting began, but after the governor had stopped speaking, the governor looked over *354his left shoulder in the direction of the banner and the chanting. At the end of the one minute and twenty-five seconds, a capítol security officer entered the gallery, seized the banner by untying or tearing it from the railing, and arrested the defendant.

I

The defendant claims that subdivisions (2) (C) and (E) of § 2-ld (a) are impermissibly vague, facially and as applied, in violation of the United States constitution. The defendant also claims that these provisions are overbroad in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution. The defendant contends that these provisions, on their face, impermissibly sweep within their proscriptions speech that may not be punished by the government. We disagree.

A

We first consider whether these provisions are unconstitutionally vague in violation of the United States constitution. “Under the requirements of due process of law mandated by our federal and state constitutions, a penal statute must be sufficiently definite to enable a person to know what conduct he must avoid. State v. Proto, 203 Conn. 682, 696, 526 A.2d 1297 (1987); State v. Pickering, 180 Conn. 54, 59-60, 428 A.2d 322 (1980); see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 77, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976); State v. Eason, 192 Conn. 37, 46, 470 A.2d 688 (1984) [overruled in part on other grounds, Paulsen v. Manson, 203 Conn. 484, 525 A.2d 1315 (1987)]. [A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. Connolly v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926); State v. Eason, supra; State v. Pickering, supra, 60.” State v. Williams, 205 Conn. 456, 469-70, 534 A.2d 230 (1987).

*355“ ‘[P]erhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If, for example, the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.’ Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362, reh. denied, 456 U.S. 950, 102 S. Ct. 2023, 72 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1982).” State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 803-804, 640 A.2d 986 (1994).

1

We apply these principles to determine whether subdivisions (2) (C) and (E) of the statute are vague on their face.11 We turn first to subdivision (2) (C), which provides that “[a] person is guilty of interfering with the legislative process when he . . . [ajlone or in concert with others, with intent to do so, disturbs, disrupts or interferes with, or attempts to disturb, disrupt or interfere with, any session, meeting or proceeding of the general assembly or either house thereof or any committee of the general assembly or either house thereof, whether within or outside the presence of said general assembly, either house thereof or any such committee by . . . making unreasonable noise.” The plain language of this provision, therefore, proscribes only those instances of “unreasonable noise” that: (1) actually interfere with the legislative process; (2) were specifi*356cally intended to interfere with the legislative process; and (3) were causally connected to the resulting interference. Fairly and reasonably interpreted, and viewed in its entirety, this subdivision is not vague on its face.

The defendant claims that this subdivision is vague on its face because it “supplies no objective standard by which to judge whether noise is ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable.’ ” She contends that “[i]n many instances, ‘reasonable noise’ is undoubtedly just as disturbing to the legislative process as is ‘unreasonable noise.’ Presumably, reasonable noise is that which is acceptable to those who enforce the rules, and unreasonable noise is that which is unacceptable. It could be otherwise only if the statute defined ‘unreasonable’ by objective standards that could be applied consistently, without reference to the meaning of a person’s noise or the variable sensibilities of the enforcement officials.” We are unpersuaded that the scope of this subdivision bestows upon officials such unfettered discretion; instead, we conclude that the totality of the language of the statute both provides fair notice to potential noisemakers and sufficiently constrains official discretion to enforce the statute such that the subdivision does not “chill” free speech.

Although the defendant cites various state and federal precedents that have invalidated statutes due to facial vagueness, she has cited to none that invalidate a statute because of the infirmities from which this subdivision of § 2-ld (a) is alleged to suffer. As the Appellate Court correctly observed, the phrase “unreasonable noise” lacks a vague quality because the term “unreasonable” denotes objectivity based on the circumstances. Because this statute is clearly related only to the disruption of official legislative proceedings, we are persuaded that an individual “would have little difficulty identifying conduct that would lead to such a result.” State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. 812; see *357 Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 112, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1972). “We do not have here a vague, general ‘breach of the peace’ ordinance, but a statute written specifically for the [legislative] context, where the prohibited disturbances are easily measured by their impact on the normal activities of the [General Assembly]. Given this ‘particular context,’ the ordinance gives ‘fair notice to those to whom [it] is directed.’ ” Groyned v. Rockford, supra, 112. This is particularly true in light of the fact that conviction under the statute requires the state to prove that the defendant possessed the specific intent to interfere with the legislative process. The specific intent requirement precludes conviction based on an unintended interference. General Statutes § 2-1d (a) (2) (C); see Houston, v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 474, 107 S. Ct. 2502, 96 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1987) (Powell, J., dissenting in part) (“intent to interfere” element “would make the language of the ordinance more precise, and possibly satisfy the concern as to vagueness”).12

Moreover, this subdivision does not employ any terms that have been found to denote a subjective standard based on the varying sensibilities of law enforcement officials. See, e.g., Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358-60, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983) (phrase “credible and reliable identification” unconstitutionally vague because it encourages “arbitrary enforcement”); *358 Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1971) (prohibiting individuals from “conducting] themselves in a manner annoying to person passing by” unconstitutionally vague because it creates “unascertainable standard . . . in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all”). On the contrary, as noted by the Appellate Court, this subdivision’s use of the phrase “unreasonable noise” increased the precision and objectivity of the rest of the subdivision’s language, which is similar to language previously found not to be unconstitutionally vague. See Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 113-14 (“noise or diversion which disturbs” not unconstitutionally vague).

Additionally, although the defendant has not specifically challenged the statute’s use of the terms “disturbs,” “disrupts” and “interferes” under her vagueness analysis of this subdivision of the statute, we believe that the narrow meaning of these terms helps this subdivision to pass facial vagueness scrutiny. As the Appellate Court properly observed, “[t]he statute itself does not define ‘disturb,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘interfere’ or ‘unreasonable.’ Dictionary definitions, however, clarify the meanings of these words. ‘Disrupt’ means ‘to upset the order of,’ or ‘throw into confusion or disorder’; ‘disturb’ means ‘to break up or destroy the tranquility or settled state of’; ‘interfere’ means ‘impede.’ American Heritage Dictionary (1981).” State v. Linares, supra, 32 Conn. App. 664-65. Further, in previously concluding that the term “interferes” within the disorderly conduct statute is not unconstitutionally vague, we interpreted that term to mean “disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. 818, 819.

Construing the language “disturbs, disrupts or interferes with” in light of the statute as a whole; State v. Burney, 189 Conn. 321, 326, 455 A.2d 1335 (1983); we *359are persuaded that the meanings of these terms do not depend on the subjective views of particular individuals. On the contrary, because § 2-ld (a) (2) expressly concerns itself only with how conduct affects official legislative functions such as sessions, meetings or proceedings, rather than how such conduct may affect a particular legislator or other individual, we conclude that the subdivision is limited to actual impediments to the legislative process based on the objective qualities of the conduct. Thus, expressive conduct only “disturbs, disrupts or interferes with” within the meaning of the statute if it can be characterized as doing so without reference to any particular message that it may express. Consequently, expressive conduct does not result in a violation of the statute merely because it causes a particular legislator, or legislators, to become subjectively upset, bothered or otherwise disquieted. In other words, law enforcement officials can only arrest and prosecute persons if some objective quality of their conduct, such as its timing, duration or intensity, creates an impediment to the legislature’s proceedings. As a result, these terms have sufficiently definite meanings and help place individuals on adequate notice as to what conduct, expressive or otherwise, is prohibited. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794, 109 S. Ct. 2746, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1989) (“[wjhile these standards are undoubtedly flexible, and the officials implementing them will exercise considerable discretion, perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of regulations that restrict expressive activity”).

We next address whether subdivision (2) (E) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Subdivision (2) (E), like subdivision (2) (C), expressly punishes a person for interfering with the legislative process when that person “with intent to do so, disturbs, disrupts or interferes with . . . any session, meeting or proceeding of *360the general assembly . . . whether within or outside the presence of said general assembly . . . .’’General Statutes § 2-1d (a) (2). The only substantive difference between these provisions is that subdivision (2) (C) prohibits an individual from creating such interference by “making unreasonable noise” and subdivision (2) (E) prohibits an individual from creating such interferences by “performing any other act which disturbs, disrupts or interferes . . . .” Because we have determined that subdivision (2) (C) is not unconstitutionally vague on its face under the United States constitution, our vagueness inquiry as to subdivision (2) (E) turns on one narrow question: does the use in subdivision (2) (E) of the phrase “performing any other act,” when construed in light of the statute as a whole, render it unconstitutionally vague?

The defendant argues that “[a] reasonable person reading the statute is unable to determine in advance whether clapping, cheering, hanging a banner, carrying a sign, or performing any other act is cause for arrest. The greater concern is that enforcement authorities are vested with virtually unlimited discretion to arrest or not arrest, based on their own subjective notions of what appears to be disturbing, disruptive or interfering with the legislative process.” (Emphasis in original.) Further, the defendant emphasizes that “[i]t strains credulity to assert that, without further statutory, regulatory or judicial guidance, the Capitol Police would alight on a proper understanding of what the statute punishes and what it does not.” We disagree.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the use in subdivision (2) (E) of the phrase “any other act,” when viewed in light of our construction of the rest of the language of the statute, does not afford law enforcement officials unlimited discretion to arrest or not to arrest. In light of our interpretation of the language *361“disturbs, disrupts or interferes with,” both subdivisions (2) (C) and (2) (E) expressly prohibit officials from making arrests on the basis of their own subjective beliefs or viewpoints. Instead, under both provisions, officials can make an arrest only if the nature of an individual’s conduct, rather than any viewpoint expressed by the conduct, creates interference with legislative proceedings. Further, under both subdivisions, the “particular context” of an official legislative proceeding gives individuals adequate notice as to what would constitute interference. See Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 112.

Moreover, as in the case of subdivision (2) (C), any imprecision in the language of subdivision (2) (E) is tempered by the specific intent requirement of the statute. The specific intent requirement decreases the possibility that an individual will unwittingly engage in punishable expressive conduct. See Houston v. Hill, supra, 482 U.S. 474 (Powell, J., dissenting in part) (“intent to interfere” element “would . . . possibly satisfy the concern as to vagueness”). Consequently, although we may agree with the defendant that the phrase “any other act,” in isolation, does not limit itself in a constitutionally precise manner, we conclude that subdivision (2) (E), when read as a whole, has a meaning that places individuals on sufficient notice as to what conduct it proscribes and adequately restricts the discretion of law enforcement officials. The words of subdivision (2) (E) “are marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity . . . but we think it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 111.

2

Additionally, the defendant cites to no relevant authority in support of her claim that subdivisions *362(2) (C) and (E) are unconstitutionally vague as applied to the present facts.13 Rather, she merely states that the statute is unconstitutional because it “did not provide the defendant with reasonable notice that her activity was illegal and because the record shows that the police decision to arrest the defendant was made, without statutory guidance, in a setting where the defendant’s behavior was set apart from that of others by the disapprobative content of her expression—not the fact that she was engaged in expression.” Her rendition of the problems with the statute, however, ignores the fact that her conviction pursuant thereto required a finding of: (1) a specific intent to interfere with the legislative process; (2) actual interference with the legislative process; and (3) a causal connection between the two. General Statutes § 2-1d (a) (2) (C) and (E). We are unconvinced that she could not know her conduct would fall within the parameters of the statute.

Further, the defendant’s claim that law enforcement officials singled out her speech as “unreasonable noise” fails to persuade us that these provisions of the statute are vague as applied to her. Even if we assume the defendant’s characterization that others in the audience in attendance made “loud and sustained sounds of approval at numerous points in the speech” and that “[t]hey were not punished,” our review of the record indicates that the audience responded to the normal flow of the governor’s speech with appropriately timed *363and moderated levels of expression.14 In contrast, the defendant’s expression halted the governor in midsentence and prevented him from resuming his address to the legislature for nearly one and one-half minutes. We therefore concur with the trial court’s finding that “[t]he noise level interfered with and caused a stopping of the governor’s speech.” (Emphasis added.) Further, although the defendant argues that “[t]he fact is that the defendant was prosecuted under . . . [subdivision (2) (E)] for unfurling a banner bearing a political slogan” and that such use of a banner is specifically permitted under capitol regulations, we are unpersuaded that the defendant did not know that her use of a large banner, in a position near the governor and in conjunction with her chanting, would subject her to arrest and prosecution under subdivision (2) (E) for interfering with the governor’s speech. Thus, we conclude that subdivisions (2) (C) and (E) are not unconstitutionally vague under the United States constitution as applied to the defendant.

B

The defendant also contends that subdivisions (2) (C) and (E) of § 2-ld (a) are overbroad in violation of the *364first amendment to the United States constitution. “A clear and precise enactment may ... be overbroad if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct. Grayned v. Rockford, supra, [408 U.S.] 114. A single impermissible application of a statute, however, will not be sufficient to invalidate the statute on its face; rather, to be invalid, a statute must reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Houston v. Hill, [supra, 482 U.S. 458]; Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., [supra, 455 U.S. 494]; see State v. Proto, supra, [203 Conn.] 707.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, supra, 205 Conn. 472. A defendant may challenge a statute as facially overbroad under the first amendment, even if the defendant’s conduct falls within the permissible scope of the statute, to vindicate two substantial interests: (1) eliminating the statute’s “chilling effect” on others who fear to engage in the expression that the statute unconstitutionally prohibits; and (2) acknowledging that every defendant has the right not to be prosecuted for expression under a constitutionally over-broad statute. R. Fallon, Jr., “Making Sense of Over-breadth,” 100 Yale L.J. 853, 867-75 (1991); see also Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581-84, 109 S. Ct. 2633,105 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1989) (O’Connor, J., plurality opinion) (discussing overbreadth doctrine’s “prophylactic,” or third party based, justification); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d Ed. 1988) § 12-27, p. 1024 (court’s invalidation of statute due to overbreadth often “doing no more than judging the party before it by a permissible standard”).15

*365To determine whether a statute reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, we must first interpret its language and determine the scope of its prohibitions. As we outlined above, the plain language of § 2-1d (a) (2) (C) proscribes only those instances of “unreasonable noise” that: (1) actually interfere with the legislative process; (2) were specifically intended to interfere with the legislative process; and (3) were causally connected to the resulting interference. Thus, on its face, this statute does not prohibit speech or other expressive conduct unless and until the character of the conduct, not its message, impedes the legislative process. Further, the statute does not attempt to punish “making unreasonable noise” unless the actor does so with the specific intent to interfere with the legislative process. Similarly, the statute does not punish simply “any other act” under subdivision (2) (E), but only those acts that meet the above qualifications.

Nonetheless, the defendant claims that these provisions are overbroad due to various linguistic infirmi*366ties. She cites the phrase “whether within or outside the presence of said general assembly, either house thereof or any such committee” as creating “a locational element in the statute that makes it apply anywhere.” (Emphasis in original.) She contends that, consequently, “[cjivil rights protestors on the capítol lawn who refuse to comply with an order to disperse . . . and who instead seek redress of their grievances by stamping their feet, clapping and singing would be subject to arrest. That is precisely the conduct held to be constitutionally protected and not prosecutable as a breach of peace.” (Emphasis in original.)

Further, the defendant contends that the phrase “making unreasonable noise” is overbroad because although the term “unreasonable” ordinarily is susceptible to a dictionary definition, its union with the undefined term “noise,” which is susceptible to many definitions, makes the entire phrase overbroad. Consequently, she contends that we must place a “fighting words” gloss on the entire phrase. Without such a gloss, in her view, “political messages delivered that are undesired may be judged unreasonable noises while welcomed messages will seem eminently reasonable.” We are unpersuaded that this subdivision casts so wide a net.

In analyzing whether these subdivisions proscribe a substantial amount of protected conduct, we note at the outset that the first amendment in all contexts “ ‘forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.’ City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 [104 S. Ct. 2118, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772] (1984).” Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 394, 113 S. Ct. 2141, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1993); see Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 806, 105 S. Ct. 3439, 87 L. Ed. 2d 567 (1985) (Cor *367 nelius) (government may not curtail speech “solely to suppress the point of view” of the speaker). Viewpoint neutral regulations, however, can be determined to be unconstitutional only after they have been analyzed under a forum based approach. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45-46, 103 S. Ct. 948, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1983) (Perry).

“In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. . . . [Such locations include] streets and parks which ‘have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.’ Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 [59 S. Ct. 954, 83 L. Ed. 1423] (1939). In these quintessential public forums, the government may . . . enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Perry, supra, 460 U.S. 45. Such close scrutiny is appropriate in these forums because such properties possess long-standing traditions of public usage. R. Post, “Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum,” 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1713, 1759 (1987) (tradition of public usage provides “point of distinction between public and nonpublic forums”).

At the other extreme, courts recognize that some government properties are decidedly “nonpublic” for first amendment purposes. “[On public] property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication . . . the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because *368public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Perry, supra, 460 U.S. 46; see International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678-79, 112 S. Ct. 2701, 120 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1992) (Lee)] State v. Ball, 226 Conn. 265, 272-73, 627 A.2d 892 (1993); see generally L. Tribe, supra, § 12-24. In other words, “the constraint imposed upon the Government is nothing more than a rational-basis requirement.” Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. 821 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

“[An intermediate category] consists of public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity. The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place. . . . Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum.” Perry, supra, 460 U.S. 45-46. The government creates such a “designated” public forum “by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse. . . . [T]he Court has looked to the policy and practice of the government to ascertain whether it intended to designate a place not traditionally open to assembly and debate as a public forum. . . . The Court has also examined the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity to discern the government’s intent.” Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. 802.

When a government opens a nontraditional forum to public expression, it does not create a designated public forum unless it intends to permit a wide range of expressive activity; id., 804-805; and property opened to some, but not all types of speech remains a nonpublic forum. Although it must permit expression of all viewpoints within the narrow category of speech that the government has intended to authorize, it may *369exclude other categories of speech. See Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 959 F.2d 381, 387 (2d Cir. 1992), rev’d on other grounds, 508 U.S. 384, 113 S. Ct. 2141, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1993); Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Board of Education, 852 F.2d 676, 679 (2d Cir. 1988).

Thus, it is clear that modern public forum analysis under the United States constitution focuses first on the category of public property at issue in the case. R. Post, supra, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1766. Only after a court has labeled a particular public property as a traditional, designated or nonpublic forum does the court then consider to what extent the government may restrict speech there. See Perry, supra, 460 U.S. 46. Because restrictions on speech in public forums receive the highest level of scrutiny and those in nonpublic forums are subject to the lowest; Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 678-79; a court’s initial categorization of property, as a practical matter, necessarily determines whether a particular restriction on speech will be invalidated. See C. Dienes, “The Trashing of the Public Forum: Problems in First Amendment Analysis,” 55 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 109,118 (1986). Scholars suggest that this modem categorical approach implicitly, if not explicitly, reflects the United States Supreme Court’s position that a government, in its proprietary function as “owner” of public lands, like any owner of private property, may choose to exclude certain classes of speech. See id., 112 (“seeds of the modern nonpublic forum doctrine” found in court’s application of private property concepts to public property); R. Post, supra, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1722-24, 1743 (notion of government acting in its proprietary function drives modern public forum analysis).

Applying the federal forum approach to the present case, we recognize that the gallery of the Hall of the House in the capitol arguably may be classified as a pub-*370lie forum dedicated to specific uses by the public.16 This particular area fails to qualify as a traditional public forum because, unlike parks or streets, the gallery has not historically been devoted to public debate. See Act-Up v. Walp, 755 F. Sup. 1281, 1287 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (gallery of chamber of Pennsylvania House of Representatives not traditional public forum). To conclude that it is a designated public forum would be to recognize the unique nature of the gallery and the narrow type of public involvement that traditionally occurs there. See id., 1288 (describing limited “communication” between public in gallery and elected officials). This conclusion would also recognize the distinction between the specific qualities of the gallery, an area open only to public viewing and limited public expression, and the traditional nature of other areas in and around the capítol. Compare id., 1288 (gallery had been used only for quiet observation and for passively communicating a citizen presence to legislators), with Reilly v. Noel, 384 F. Sup. 741, 744 (D.R.I. 1974) (rotunda at statehouse had followed “open-door” policy); see also Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 238, 83 S. Ct. 680, 9 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1963) (recognizing that grounds of statehouse appropriate for protest). If we were to determine that the gallery of the capítol is such a designated public forum, we would then have to apply the most rigorous level of scrutiny and invalidate subdivisions (2) (C) and (E) as overbroad prohibitions unless they qualify as reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave *371open ample alternative channels of communication. See Perry, supra, 460 U.S. 45-46.

Because the gallery has been opened to the public only for the limited purpose of viewing and allowing minimal participation in the legislative process by moderate and timely expressions of approval or disapproval, however, it seems possible, under federal forum analysis, that this part of the capitol appropriately may be designated a nonpublic forum. See Comelim, supra, 473 U.S. 802. Similarly, locations other than the capitol that house official legislative proceedings, such as public hearings, may be considered to be nonpublic forums because the public likewise has only been given a limited expressive role in such places. “The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Id. If that were the case, we would uphold the statute “as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Perry, supra, 460 U.S. 46. Nonetheless, we need not conclusively categorize the forum at issue, because we conclude that subdivisions (2) (C) and (E) qualify as reasonable time, place and manner restrictions and that these subdivisions therefore pass constitutional muster even under the most stringent standard.

In any type of forum, from traditional public to nonpublic, it is permissible to impose content-neutral “time, place and manner” regulations on speech that are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and that “ ‘leave open ample alternative channels for communication.’ ” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, supra, 491 U.S. 791. We initially discuss the governmental interest in prohibiting interferences with the General Assembly. The legislature operates under a constitutional mandate in our democratic state govern*372ment. The constitution of Connecticut, article third, § 1, provides for the vesting of the legislative power in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Article third, § 2, authorizes the meeting of the General Assembly and delineates the General Assembly’s power to meet in regular and special sessions as needed. Further, article third, §§ 3 through 5, establish the General Assembly’s role as a representative body. Equally important to this case, our state constitution requires the governor to convey to the General Assembly “information of the state of the government, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall deem expedient.” Conn. Const., art. IV, § 11.

Like the United States Congress, our state legislature, in order to execute this constitutional mandate effectively, must retain the power “to preserve itself, that is, to deal by way of contempt with direct obstructions to its legislative duties.” Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521, 537, 37 S. Ct. 448, 61 L. Ed. 881 (1917); see also Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125, 147-50, 55 S. Ct. 375, 79 L. Ed. 802 (1935) (discussing congressional power to prevent obstructions to legislative process). Thus, it must have “the right to prevent acts which in and of themselves inherently obstruct or prevent the discharge of legislative duty or the refusal to do that which there is an inherent legislative power to compel in order that legislative functions may be performed.” Marshall v. Gordon, supra, 542; see White v. Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421,1425-26 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing city council’s need to be free from disruptions). Consequently, it is clear that the state has a significant interest in ensuring that the General Assembly, whether sitting in a session, meeting, proceeding or committee, has the opportunity to fulfill its mandate free from objectively unreasonable interferences.

In emphasizing the strength of the state’s interest in maintaining a functional General Assembly, we do *373not suggest that such an interest may be wielded by the government to stifle completely public expression in the Hall of the House, or other locations of official legislative proceedings. The public assuredly enjoys a right to reasonable expression at government locations of all types. See, e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 514, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969) (reversed conviction for wearing black armbands to school in protest of Vietnam war); Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, 372 U.S. 238 (reversed conviction of protestors who sang, clapped and stomped feet outside statehouse on its grounds). This undeniable public right to reasonable expression does not mean, however, that a member of the public “has an absolute constitutional right to use all parts of [the capítol] or its immediate environs for [that individual’s] unlimited expressive purposes.” Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 117-18.

Indeed, although the defendant asserts that the phrase “whether within or outside the presence of said general assembly, either house thereof or any such committee” included in § 2-ld (a) (2) creates “a locational element in the statute that makes it apply anywhere,” we conclude that the statute, as a whole, is narrowly tailored to protect the state’s interests. Under subdivision (2) (C), an individual is never subject to arrest or prosecution for “making unreasonable noise” outside the presence of an official legislative proceeding unless that person intends and effects an actual interference with that proceeding. This subdivision appropriately recognizes that “unreasonable noise” can succeed in its aim even if it is created “outside” the presence of the targeted proceeding. Merely critical expression outside the capítol, however, could not be punished; see Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318-19, 108 S. Ct. 1157, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1988); instead, the state would necessarily have to prove that the characteris*374tics of the expression, rather than the message it contained, intentionally and actually interfered with official proceedings inside the building. Inherently limited in this way, these subdivisions merely place reasonable constraints on the “time, place or manner” of expressive conduct, and they preserve “ ‘ample alternative channels for communication.’ ” See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, supra, 491 U.S. 791.

Moreover, in light of the vital state interests involved and the facially narrow language employed, we reject the defendant’s contention that we must place a “fighting words” gloss on the phrase “unreasonable noise.” As correctly noted by the defendant, courts often have recognized that application of a “fighting words” gloss can save a broad breach of the peace statute from a constitutional overbreadth claim. See, e.g., Marks v. Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644 (Alaska 1972); In re Brown, 9 Cal. 3d 612, 617-19, 510 P.2d 1017, 108 Cal. Rptr. 465 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 950, 94 S. Ct. 1959, 40 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1974); Commonwealth v. Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 595-97, 334 N.E.2d 617 (1975), superseded by statute as stated in Commonwealth v. Unnamed Defendant, 22 Mass. App. 230, 492 N.E.2d 1184 (1986). These cases are irrelevant to the present context, however, because they involved statutes that were not narrowly tailored to the nature of a particular site or the needs of specific government institutions. In other words, a “fighting words” gloss is inappropriate here because “unreasonable noise” can create an interference with the legislative process regardless of whether the “noise” is characterized as “fighting words.” For instance, if, during floor debates on a bill, a member of the gallery shouted slogans loudly in order to express her disapproval with the pending legislation, such expression could objectively be characterized as “unreasonable noise” even if her actual words were not susceptible to a “fighting words” designation. Con*375sequently, we conclude that subdivision (2) (C) is not overbroad in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution because it is a reasonable restriction of time, place and manner that is narrowly tailored to serve the significant state interest in preserving a reasonably efficient legislative process and that leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.

For similar reasons, we must reject the Appellate Court’s observation that subdivision (2) (E) “is similar to the ordinance in Houston v. Hill, supra, [482 U.S. 451,] that was held by the United States Supreme Court to be unconstitutional because of overbreadth,” and its conclusion that “[w]e discern no meaningful difference between the two statutes, and hold that [subdivision (E)] is unconstitutional as overbroad.” State v. Linares, supra, 32 Conn. App. 668. First, § 2-1d (a) (2) (E) applies only to disruptions of official meetings of the General Assembly. This locational element limits the statute’s restrictive effect on protected speech. See Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 112, 117-18. Second, subdivision (2) (E) applies only if an individual acts with the specific intent to disturb, disrupt or interfere. We agree with Justice Powell’s recognition in Houston that such a specific intent element can save an otherwise overbroad statute because such a requirement narrows the statute’s applicability by excluding from its ambit those whose expression may have innocently or unknowingly caused a disturbance. See Houston v. Hill, supra, 482 U.S. 474 (Powell, J., dissenting in part). Third, subdivision (2) (E), as interpreted above, only applies if conduct, expressive or otherwise, “disturbs, disrupts or interferes with” an official legislative proceeding due to its characteristics and not because of any message it may have conveyed. The statute therefore does not permit an arrest or prosecution that is based on the subjective views of law enforce*376ment officials or the varying sensibilities of individual legislators. See Boos v. Barry, supra, 485 U.S. 318-19 (statute invalid because it grants officials too much discretion); Houston v. Hill, supra, 465 (statute invalidated because it “provide[s] the police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy or offend them”). Consequently, the state may not arrest or prosecute under subdivision (2) (E) unless: (1) the defendant had the specific intent to impede an official legislative proceeding; and (2) the defendant’s conduct, rather than any message it might have contained, actually caused that impediment. Thus, subdivision (2) (E) is not overbroad in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution.

II

The defendant next claims that § 2-ld (a) (2) (C) and (E) are vague, both on their face and as applied, in violation of the due process provisions of the Connecticut constitution. She argues that these subdivisions fail to satisfy the independent protections against the enforcement of vague laws afforded under our state constitution because they lack “ ‘minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.’ ” The defendant further claims that these statutory provisions are overbroad in violation of the Connecticut constitution because they impermissibly proscribe expressive conduct at the capitol that is protected under the expansive free speech provisions of our state constitution. We disagree.

A

We need not dwell on the defendant’s vagueness claims under the Connecticut constitution. The defendant principally bases her independent state constitutional vagueness claims on the authority of State v. Coleman, 96 Conn. 190, 113 A. 385 (1921). In Coleman, this court denounced indefinite criminal laws that “leave the constitutional liberties of a citizen to be *377defined and protected by the good impulses of a subordinate official entrusted with unlimited discretion.” Id., 196. Although we acknowledge that Coleman buttresses the defendant’s general claim that the Connecticut constitution independently protects free speech from the dangers of arbitrary and selective enforcement based on viewpoint, we cannot discern any reason for this to cause us to analyze these issues any differently under the Connecticut constitution than we analyzed them under the federal constitution.

In short, we have considered in detail the defendant’s vagueness claims under the federal constitution, and she has failed to persuade us that our state constitution mandates a different analysis or contrary result. As we discussed above, § 2-1d (a) (2) (C) and (E) give individuals adequate notice of what conduct they prohibit. Further, the language of these provisions, when read in light of the statute as a whole, sufficiently guides law enforcement officials in the execution of their duties. Thus, unlike the statute at issue in Coleman that gave officials “unlimited” or “absolute and uncontrolled” discretion; (emphasis added) id., 196-97; the subdivisions of § 2-1d in question do not permit unconstitutionally unrestrained discretion under the Connecticut constitution. Moreover, because we have concluded that the defendant’s specific conduct clearly falls within the statute, we are unpersuaded that these subdivisions are vague as applied to her conduct.

B

The defendant also claims that § 2-ld (a) (2) (C) and (E) are overbroad in violation of the free speech provisions of the Connecticut constitution. Her state constitutional claim is in two parts. First, she contends that we should reject modern federal forum analysis in favor of a more flexible, fact specific approach similar to that utilized by the United States Supreme Court prior to *378its adoption of the Perry forum based model. Second, she argues that, under this more flexible approach, the subdivisions of the statute should be invalidated. We agree with the defendant’s first argument but reject the second.

Under the prior approach, the United States Supreme Court’s first amendment analysis often relied not on any consideration of the government’s proprietary right to exclude, but only on whether the particular speech in issue was consistent with the uses of the specific public property involved. See C. Dienes, supra, 55 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 112; accord Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 104; Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 86 S. Ct. 719, 15 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1966); Edwards v. South Carolina, supra, 372 U.S. 229. The central issue under that approach was “whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. . . . [I]n assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, [a court weighs] heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State’s legitimate interest.” Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 116-17. This emphasis on basic compatibility, rather than on categorization of particular “types” of public property, reflected the court’s attempt “to serve the first amendment value of maximizing social communication.” R. Post, supra, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1731.

In deciding whether our state constitution demands such an interpretation, we acknowledge that federal constitutional law sets minimum national standards for individual rights and that states may afford individuals greater protections under their own state constitutions. State v. Miller, 227 Conn. 363, 379, 630 A.2d 1315 (1993); State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 649, 613 A.2d 1300 (1992); State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). Although we often look to United States Supreme Court precedent when construing *379related provisions in our state constitution, we may determine that “ ‘the protections afforded to the citizens of this state by our own constitution go beyond those provided by the federal constitution, as that document has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112, 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166, 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36, 496 A.2d 498 (1985).’ ” State v. Geisler, supra, 684, quoting State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 160, 579 A.2d 58 (1990).

To determine whether our state constitution affords greater rights than the federal constitution, we consider the following “tools of analysis”: (1) the “textual” approach—consideration of the specific words in the constitution; (2) holdings and dicta of this court and the Appellate Court; (3) federal precedent; (4) the “sibling” approach—examination of other states’ decisions; (5) the “historical” approach—including consideration of the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers; and (6) economic and sociological, or public policy, considerations. State v. Miller, supra, 227 Conn. 380-81; State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514, 530-31, 628 A.2d 567 (1993); State v. Geisler, supra, 222 Conn. 685. Applying this analysis, we decline to follow the modern, forum based approach currently employed to resolve claims under the first amendment to the United States constitution that concern abridgement of speech on public property. Instead, we agree with Judge Schaller’s concurrence in the Appellate Court and adopt the “compatibility” test, as expressed in Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 116-17, for claims brought under the Connecticut constitution that involve restrictions on speech on public property. See State v. Linares, supra, 32 Conn. App. 686 (Schaller, J., concurring).

The defendant’s freedom of speech claims implicate various sections of our state constitution. “The state *380constitutional framework for protection of the right of free speech rests principally upon the provisions of article first, §§ 4 and 5 of the constitution of Connecticut.” Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 71, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (Peters, J., dissenting). Article first, § 4, provides that “[ejvery citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Further, article first, § 5, provides that “[n]o law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.” Also relevant to the defendant’s claim, article first, § 14, provides that “[t]he citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.”

It is instructive to compare the language of these sections to the corresponding language of the United States constitution. See U.S. Const., amend. I (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”). Our state constitution includes in article first, § 4, the word “publish,” a term not found within the United States constitution. Other courts, construing the term “publish” in the context of similarly worded state constitutions, have found that the term creates expanded communicative rights for the public. See Tate v. Akers, 409 F. Sup. 978, 981-82 (D. Wyo. 1976), aff’d, 565 F.2d 1166 (10th Cir. 1977) (construing Wyoming constitution); South Holland v. Stein, 373 Ill. 472,479-80, 26 N.E.2d 868 (1940) (Illinois constitution).

Moreover, as Judge Schaller noted, article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, also include other language that suggests that our state constitution bestows greater expressive rights on the public than that afforded by the federal consti*381tution. State v. Linares, supra, 32 Conn. App. 678 (Schaller, J., concurring). “Article first, § 4, of the Connecticut constitution provides that ‘[ejvery citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.’ (Emphasis added.) By contrast, the first amendment does not include language protecting free speech ‘on all subjects.’ Article first, § 5, provides that ‘[n]o law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.’ (Emphasis added.) Unlike the first amendment which provides that ‘Congress shall pass no law’ the use of ‘ever’ in our state constitution offers additional emphasis to the force of the provision. Finally, article first, § 14, provides that citizens have a right, inter alia, ‘to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances ... by petition, address or remonstrance. ’ (Emphasis added.) Again, our state constitution offers language, i.e., ‘remonstrance,’ that sets forth free speech rights more emphatically than its federal counterpart. . . . [Tjhese differences warrant an interpretation separate and distinct from that of the first amendment.” State v. Linares, supra, 678. We are persuaded that Grayned’s fact specific, flexible approach will offer more protection to freedom of speech as envisioned in our state constitution. See Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 69-72 {Peters, J., dissenting) (discussing independent vitality of free speech protections under state constitution).

The case law of this state also supports our adoption of the more speech protective Grayned approach. As early as 1921, this court looked to the constitution of Connecticut to protect individuals from laws that gave officials unlimited discretion to limit freedom of speech. State v. Coleman, supra, 96 Conn. 195-96. In doing so, the Coleman court looked beyond the less speech protective approach then followed by the United States *382Supreme Court in interpreting the federal constitution, and stated that “in determining whether [the ordinance] violates the Constitution of Connecticut, we must be guided by our own public policy and our own precedents.” Id., 195; see State v. McKee, 73 Conn. 18, 28-29, 46 A. 409 (1900) (discussing importance of free expression in democratic society).

Moreover, we have recognized that our state constitution “is an instrument of progress, it is intended to stand for a great length of time and should not be interpreted too narrowly or too literally so that it fails to have contemporary effectiveness for all of our citizens.” State v. Dukes, supra, 209 Conn. 115. This concern for “contemporary effectiveness” would be undermined if we followed federal forum analysis, which affords the most rigorous protection of speech only at “traditional” forums and narrowly defines “traditional” to exclude modern public gathering places often otherwise compatible with public expression. See, e.g., Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 680 (airport not public forum because not traditionally “used for purposes of expressive activity”).

A body of federal case law concerning this particular issue of free speech lends considerable support to our adoption of a flexible approach. As discussed previously, prior to its return to the more rigid, forum based categorization of public property, the United States Supreme Court followed the flexible approach espoused in Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 104. This model of first amendment analysis required a case-by-case balancing of the right to free speech against the competing interest of preventing unreasonable interference with the “normal activity” of a particular place. Id., 116-17. Free from the modem inquiry containing varying levels of judicial scrutiny, the Grayned model focused not on the labeling of property as “traditional public” or “nonpublic,” but on whether the specific use *383of particular government property compelled some level of speech regulation. Many dissents and concurrences of the United States Supreme Court have advocated for the rejection of the forum approach in favor of the unified, Grayned type balancing test. See, e.g., Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 695 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“inquiry must be an objective one, based on the actual, physical characteristics and uses of the property”); United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 737, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 111 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (public forum jurisprudence, “to retain vitality,” must consider objective characteristics of governmental property and its customary public use); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 843, 96 S. Ct. 1211, 47 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring) (inquiry should have focused on Grayned’s “basic incompatibility” test), and 860 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (flexible approach should have been used to determine whether particular speech “basically compatible with the activities otherwise occurring at the locale”).

These justices have emphasized that the use of the unified, balancing test is necessary to preserve the value of free speech in light of the realities of public expression in modern life. See, e.g., Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 697 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (without unified “compatibility” approach that ignores mere historical analysis, “our forum doctrine retains no relevance in times of fast-changing technology and increasing insularity”). Similarly, some commentators and scholars have resoundingly advocated for a return to a flexible, unified approach focused on speech “compatibility.” See R. Post, supra, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1765-66 and n.213 (discussing overwhelming support for adoption of Grayned approach).

Indeed, one commentator has noted that the Grayned approach “is designed to maximize the speech which the government is constitutionally required to tolerate, *384consistent with the appropriate and needful use of its property. This design flows naturally from the first amendment’s central objective of ensuring ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ public debate.” R. Post, supra, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1766, quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). We are persuaded by these observations concerning the flexibility of the Grayned approach and the failings of the current federal model; accordingly, we believe that our adoption of the Grayned approach will best protect free speech under our state constitution. This conclusion finds support from the decision of at least one other state court interpreting its own state constitution’s speech protections. See U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, 154 Cal. App. 3d 1157, 1164-65, 201 Cal. Rptr. 837 (1984) (adopting Grayned test under constitution of California).

Further, our decision to adopt the more speech sensitive approach of Grayned under our state constitution is supported by the history of free speech in Connecticut. In Cologne, this court’s majority opinion discussed the historical underpinnings of free speech under the Connecticut constitution and concluded that the constitutional framers were concerned primarily with curbing undue interference from the government. Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 192 Conn. 60-62. Similarly, the dissent in Cologne discussed the well established importance of free speech in society and analyzed the broad protections to speech expressly incorporated into the Connecticut constitution. Id., 69-71, 76-80 (Peters, J., dissenting). Additionally, Judge Schaller’s historical analysis sheds light on this state constitutional question. “Before the 1818 Connecticut constitutional convention, civil liberties in Connecticut were in their infancy, particularly freedoms of speech and press. C. Collier, ‘The Connecticut Decía*385ration of Rights Before the Constitution of 1818: A Victim of Revolutionary Redefinition,’ 15 Conn. L. Rev. 87, 97 (1982). ‘These were protected neither by statute nor by a well-articulated set of common law principles.’ Id. Thus, the Connecticut constitutional convention ‘overrode the protestations of the Federalist old republicans who still clung to their faith in legislative supremacy and the common law to uphold [speech rights in Connecticut].’ Id.

“Moreover, in the years immediately preceding our constitution’s enactment, Connecticut citizens embraced a philosophy of greater tolerance, moving toward a more culturally diverse society. R. Purcell, Connecticut in Transition: 1775-1818 (Wesleyan Univ. Press 1963) pp. 311-35; W. Horton, ‘Annotated Debates of the 1818 Constitutional Convention,’ 65 Conn. B.J. SI-1, SI-4 (1991). This is particularly evident in the struggle to separate church and state. Between 1812 and 1818, the issue of church and state deeply divided political factions. R. Purcell, supra, pp. 320-21. The Federalists continued to support established institutions both religious and secular. Id. At the same time, the Tolerationists strongly advocated the separation of church and state and, as their party name suggests, a movement toward greater tolerance. Id. The Tolerationists gained a major victory with the election of Governor Wolcott in 1817 and, a year later, with the overwhelming placement of their representatives in both houses of the legislature. Id., p. 360. By 1818, it was apparent that the political tide in Connecticut had shifted in the direction of greater tolerance and cultural diversity. Ultimately, these views culminated in the enactment of the Connecticut constitution. [We are] convinced, therefore, that our constitution’s speech provisions reflect a unique historical experience and a move toward enhanced civil liberties, particularly those liberties designed to foster individuality.” State v. *386 Linares, supra, 32 Conn. App. 681-83 (Schaller, J., concurring). This historical background indicates that the framers of our constitution contemplated vibrant public speech, and a minimum of governmental interference, which would be best fulfilled by the less intrusive Grayned model.

Finally, it is clear that our adoption of the flexible, Grayned approach will best enable our courts to adapt the central tenets of free speech jurisprudence to the ever changing nature of public expression and communication in modern society. As aptly expressed by Justice Kennedy, “[i]n a country where most citizens travel by automobile, and parks all too often become locales for crime rather than social intercourse, our failure to recognize the possibility that new types of government property may be appropriate forums for speech will lead to a serious curtailment of our expressive activity.” Lee, supra, 505 U.S. 697-98 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Further, this flexible approach prohibits the government from unilaterally and unnecessarily limiting speech at public locations; it avoids the “grant of plenary power [that] allows the government to tilt the dialogue heard by the public, to exclude many, more marginal, voices.” Id., 702.

With these principles in mind, we nonetheless must reject the defendant’s overbreadth claims under the Connecticut constitution. As we outlined previously, the Grayned test requires the government, under the Connecticut constitution, to permit free speech and public expression on government property up to the point when such free expression becomes “basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. . . . [I]n assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State’s legitimate interest.” Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. *387116-17. This standard balances the vital role of free expression in a democratic society with the need for reasonably functional governmental institutions and mechanisms. “The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 116.

Because subdivision (2) (C) narrowly prohibits only conduct that amounts to “unreasonable noise” and that intentionally creates an impediment to an official legislative proceeding because of characteristics such as its timing, loudness and duration, rather than any message it may convey, this subdivision facially limits itself to expression that is “basically incompatible” with the business of the General Assembly. Subdivision (2) (E) is also limited so as to prohibit only an act that is intended to interfere with a legislative proceeding and, in fact, interferes with such a proceeding because of its characteristics rather than because of any message it conveys. Subdivision (2) (E), as does subdivision (2) (C), therefore expressly restricts itself to expression that is “basically incompatible” with the business of the General Assembly. This conclusion recognizes that public expression must yield at the point where the General Assembly “is prevented from accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner.” White v. Norwalk, supra, 900 F.2d 1426. “Where an examination of all the relevant interests indicates that certain expressive activity is not compatible with the normal uses of the property, the First Amendment does not require the government to allow that activity.” Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. 820 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (applying Grayned test).17

*388III

We next consider the defendant’s claim that the trial court should have granted her motion to dismiss because her arrest and prosecution were based on her constitutionally protected political expression. She argues that this court should adopt the three part balancing test, enunciated in State v. Hardin, 498 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1993), and In re Kay, 1 Cal. 3d 930, 464 P.2d 142, 83 Cal. Rptr. 686 (1970), that, in the *389defendant’s view, attempts to balance “the expressive rights of speakers and dissident audience members” at public events of a political nature. The defendant would have us assess: (1) the nature of the meeting involved; (2) whether the activity substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting; and (3) whether the defendants knew, or should have known, that their conduct violated an applicable custom, usage, or rule of the meeting. In re Kay, supra, 943. Applying this formula to her case, the defendant contends that her prosecution fails the test because the governor’s address was a “political event,” her “ ‘activity’ did not seriously ‘impair’ the occasion,” she “scarcely could have known that her chant was not as acceptable as loud, sustained applause or booing,” and “the capítol police should have requested the defendant to curtail her expression before proceeding with arrest.” We are unpersuaded.

Although the defendant crafts this as a claim separate and distinct from her vagueness and overbreadth claims, we are unconvinced that the so-called Kay-Hardin test is anything more than an adaptation of the Grayned model of free speech analysis to the context of a “public meeting” or “political rally.” See In re Kay, supra, 1 Cal. 3d 943 (characterizing meeting as “large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park, featuring, in the course of a political campaign, a public official as the principal speaker”). It is noteworthy that the specific ordinance at issue in In re Kay had prohibited willful disturbances at “ ‘any assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character’ ”; (emphasis added) id., 937-38; and that the relevant conduct had occurred in a public park during a city sponsored Fourth of July celebration.18 In light of these circumstances, that court *390concluded that it needed to apply such a test to determine whether the ordinance at issue really was an unconstitutionally overbroad restriction based on viewpoint. Id., 943.

Even if we were to agree in principle with the use of a balancing test in In re Kay, a determination that we need not make in this case, we have already applied this test, as tailored to the particular statute and circumstances of this case, to the defendant’s claims and rejected them in part IIB of this opinion. As discussed previously, the challenged subdivisions of the statute are narrowly tailored to prohibit only conduct, expressive or otherwise, that is intended to impede and does impede an official legislative proceeding. In the words of the court in In re Kay, § 2-ld (a) (2) (C) and (E) pass constitutional muster because they “[authorize] the imposition of criminal sanctions only when the defendant’s activity itself—and not the content [or, more accurately, the viewpoint] of the activity’s expression— substantially impairs the effective conduct” of an official legislative proceeding. (Emphasis in original.) In re Kay, supra, 1 Cal. 3d 942.

Moreover, our independent review of the record does not support the defendant’s claim that the government utilized the statute to punish her solely for the expression of her particular viewpoint. Unlike the circumstances underlying the decision in In re Kay, the defendant’s conduct here impeded the governor’s *391address because of the inappropriate timing, loudness and duration of the chanting, and because of the combined effect of the chanting and her distracting use of the banner, which was positioned immediately to the left of the governor’s location and which drew away the attention of the legislators in attendance. Compare In re Kay, supra, 1 Cal. 3d 944 (“prosecution failed to show that the activities substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting”). In other words, the defendant’s conduct constitutionally supports a conviction under § 2-Id (a) (2) (C) and (E) because the manner of her communication, rather than the viewpoint expressed in her message, intentionally interfered with an ongoing legislative proceeding.19 Further, the defendant offered no evidence that others had engaged in similar intentional interferences with official legislative proceedings, but had not been punished.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed in part, and the case is remanded to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this opinion Peters, C. J., and Borden and NorCOTT, Js., concurred.

Callahan, J., concurred in the result.

Opinion

KATZ, J.

This case, which comes to us upon our acceptance of six certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to Public Acts 1999, No. 99-107, § 4,1 2asks us to consider the facial 2 validity, under the Connecticut constitution, of the nighttime juvenile curfew ordinance (ordinance) of the named defendant, the town of Vernon (town). Vernon Code of Ordinances § 8-4 (Curfew Ordinance). Specifically, the certified questions require us to determine whether the town’s ordinance: (1) violates minors’ rights of free speech and assembly as *802secured by article first, §§ 4,3 54 and 14,5 of the Connecticut constitution; (2) violates minors’ rights of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by article first, § 7,6 of the Connecticut constitution; (3) violates minors’ rights of personal liberty as secured by article first, § 9,7 8of the Connecticut constitution; (4) violates minors’ rights of equal protection as secured by article first, §§ I8 and 20,9 of the Connecticut constitution; (5) violates parents’ rights of due process as secured by article first, § 10,10 of the Connecticut constitution; or (6) is unconstitutionally vague in violation of *803article first, § 8,* 11 of the Connecticut constitution. We conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to sustain “the heavy burden of proving [the ordinance’s] unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Floyd, 217 Conn. 73, 79, 584 A.2d 1157 (1991). Therefore, we conclude that the town’s ordinance is not facially unconstitutional under any of these provisions of the constitution of Connecticut. Accordingly, we answer certified questions one through six in the negative.

The following facts and procedural history, as provided by the District Court in its certification request pursuant to Practice Book § 82-3,12 are relevant to our disposition of the certified questions. “The plaintiff, Richard Ramos, is a fourteen year old13 resident of [the town], . . . The other plaintiff, Janet Ramos, is a resident of [the town] and the mother of Richard Ramos. . . ,14 [The town] is a Connecticut municipality organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut that [has adopted] and enforces [the ordinance] as a matter of official policy. . . . [The defendant] Rudolf Rossmy *804is the chief of police for [the town] and is responsible for the enforcement of the ordinance.”15

“On August 2, 1994, [the town] enacted [the ordinance, entitled] ‘An Ordinance Establishing a Curfew’ .... The ordinance creates a general curfew for persons under eighteen that is in effect from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on weeknights and 12:01 a.m to 5:00 a.m. on weekends. . . . The [ordinance] states that it was enacted to: T. protect minors from each other and from other persons on the streets during nocturnal hours; 2. promote parental responsibility for and supervision of minors; and 3. protect the general public from nocturnal mischief and crime committed by minors.’ Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (a) . . . .

“The [ordinance] establishes the following offenses: ‘1. Curfew for Minors. It shall be unlawful for any minor to remain, idle, wander, stroll or play in any public place or establishment in the Town during curfew hours unless accompanied by a parent, guardian, custodian or other adult person having custody or control of such minor or unless the minor is on an emergency errand or specific business or activity directed or permitted by his parent, guardian, or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor or where the presence of such minor is connected with or required by some legitimate employment, trade, profession or occupation, or unless the minor is exercising his/her [f]irst [a]mendment rights.16

“ ‘2. Parents’ Responsibility. It shall be unlawful for the parent, guardian or other adult person having custody or control of any minor under the age of sixteen *805(16) to suffer or permit or by inefficient control to allow such person to be on the streets or sidewalks or on or in any public property or public place or establishment within the Town during the curfew hours. However, the provisions of this Section do not apply to a minor accompanied by his or her parent, guardian, custodian or other adult person having the care, custody or control of the minor, or if the minor is on an emergency errand or specific business or activity directed by the minor’s parent, guardian, custodian or other adult having the care and custody of the minor or if the parent, guardian or other adult person herein has made a missing person notification to the Police Department.’ Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c). . . .17

*806“[In addition to the exceptions listed within the ordinance provision establishing the ‘Curfew for Minors’; Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1); the ordinance] provides the following exception for special functions: ‘Any minor attending a special function or event sponsored by any religious, school, club, or other organization that requires such minor to be out at a later hour than that called for in this section shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance provided such minor has the approval of his or her parent or guardian to attend said function or event. Such minors who attend said function or event shall be required to be in their homes or usual place of abode within one half hour after said function or event is ended.’ Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (d). . . .

“The [ordinance] authorizes police officers to issue citations to minors sixteen or seventeen years old. See Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (e) (1). For minors under the age of sixteen, the ordinance requires police officers to issue a warning for the first infraction. See Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (e) (2) (A). If a minor under sixteen fails to heed a warning or has been warned on a previous occasion, a police officer can take the minor to the Police Department and notify the parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor. See Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (e) (2) (B).

“For minors sixteen and seventeen years of age who violate the curfew, the ordinance provides that they shall be fined no more than $50 for the first infraction, $75 for the second infraction, and $90 for all subsequent infractions. See Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (f) (2). For minors under sixteen, the ordinance provides that the parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of a minor, who has received notice under § 8-4 (e) (2), shall be fined no more than $50 for the first infraction, $75 for the second infraction, and $90 for all subsequent infractions. See Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (f) (3) (A).” The ordinance also provides that “any *807minor under the age of sixteen (16) violating the provisions of this ordinance may be referred to juvenile authorities and dealt with in accordance with the Juvenile Court law and procedure.” Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (f) (3) (C).

The District Court’s certification request also provided: “[Richard Ramos] alleges that, with his mother’s permission, he has engaged and continues to engage in social activities with his friends that continue past the start of curfew. ... He claims that he has literally had to run home from such activities for fear of being caught out during curfew hours. . . . [Janet Ramos] alleges that the curfew ordinance usurps her parental authority and violates her right to set her own limits on her son’s activities as she sees fit.”

The plaintiffs brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants in the District Court challenging the validity of the town’s ordinance. The plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance violates their constitutional rights as guaranteed by the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and their rights as guaranteed by various provisions of article first of the constitution of Connecticut.

Subsequently, the District Court issued a ruling that upheld the ordinance against the challenges predicated upon the federal constitution. See generally Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Vernon, 48 F. Sup. 2d 176 (D. Conn. 1999). The District Court reserved judgment on the plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims pending resolution of this certification request. Id., 188. Pursuant to Public Act No. 99-107, § 4; see footnote 1 of this opinion; we accepted the District Court’s certification request to answer six certified questions.18 We answer questions one through six in the negative.

*808I

STANDING

Before considering the certified questions, we first address the issue of whether the plaintiffs have standing to raise claims challenging the facial validity of the ordinance. “If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause. Housing Authority v. Local 1161, 1 Conn. App. 154, 157, 468 A.2d 1251, cert. denied, 192 Conn. 802, 471 A.2d 244 (1984). Further, the court has a duty to dismiss, even on its own initiative, any [portion of the] appeal that it lacks jurisdiction to hear. Sasso v. Aleshin, 197 Conn. 87, 89, 495 A.2d 1066 (1985). . . . Tomlinson v. Board of Education, 226 Conn. 704, 717-18, 629 A.2d 333 (1993); see Daley v. Hartford, 215 Conn. 14, 27-28, 574 A.2d 194, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 982, 111 S. Ct. 573, 112 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1990) (the question of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weidenbacher v. Duclos, 234 Conn. 51, 54 n.4, 661 A.2d 988 (1995).

“Standing is ... a practical concept designed to ensure that courts and parties are not vexed by suits brought to vindicate nonjusticiable interests and that judicial decisions which may affect the rights of others are forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and *809vigorously represented. . . . These two objectives are ordinarily held to have been met when a complainant makes a colorable claim of direct injury [that the complainant] has suffered oris likely to suffer, in an individual or representative capacity. Such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy . . . provides the requisite assurance of concrete adverseness and diligent advocacy.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, 251 Conn. 169, 178, 740 A.2d 813 (1999).

This court previously has concluded that “a genuine likelihood of criminal liability or civil incarceration is sufficient to confer standing. ” Board of Pardons v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 646, 650, 556 A.2d 1020 (1989). In that case, the court concluded that the board of pardons (board) had standing to challenge a freedom of information commission’s order “requiring the board, in the future, to conduct its deliberations in public except under narrowly delimited circumstances.” Id., 647-48. In determining that the board had standing, the court reasoned that, “[b]ecause the Freedom of Information Act makes noncompliance with [a freedom of information commission] order a class B misdemeanor . . . the individual members of the board have a specific and personal interest in the validity of such an order. In the future, board members face the risk of injury, in the form of criminal prosecution and sanctions, if they fail to comply with the present [freedom of information commission] order. Such a risk of prosecution establishes the requisite specific and personal interest of the members of the board and of the board itself as their representative.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 650. Furthermore, other courts have considered preenforcement challenges to juvenile curfews. See, e.g., Waters v. Barry, 711 F. Sup. 1125, 1128-31 (D.D.C. 1989) (holding *810preenforcement challenge to juvenile curfew statute justiciable because plaintiffs provided descriptions of past activities that they hoped to continue and that would be prohibited by statute).

In this case, Richard Ramos alleges that he has engaged in, and continues to engage in, conduct that is “unlawful”; Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1); under the ordinance. We recognize, without deciding, that although Richard Ramos arguably is not subject to “criminal” liability for violating the ordinance,19 the ordinance provides that, as a minor under sixteen years of age, he may “be referred to juvenile authorities and dealt with in accordance with the Juvenile Court law and procedure”; Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (f) (3) (C); for violating the ordinance. Because the conclusion in Board of Pardons that the board had standing to challenge the freedom of information commission’s order did not rest upon the level or type of sanction that the board members potentially faced, we find the rationale of that case to be equally compelling in a case, such as this, in which the litigant’s alleged activity is proscribed by the ordinance as “unlawful”; Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1); and in which the litigant may be referred to Juvenile Court for violation of its terms. Therefore, we conclude that Richard Ramos has standing to challenge the ordinance with respect to certified questions one through four. Each of these questions is premised upon *811claims that involve an alleged deprivation of his rights as a minor.

Janet Ramos has alleged that the curfew ordinance usurps her parental authority over her son. We conclude that she has raised “a colorable claim of direct injury [that she] has suffered or is likely to suffer . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. 178. Therefore, she has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance with respect to question five, which involves an alleged violation of her rights as a parent. We conclude that both Richard Ramos and Janet Ramos have standing to raise the vagueness claim contained in question six, as such a claim implicates an alleged violation of their rights as a minor and parent, respectively.

II

CERTIFIED QUESTION NUMBER ONE:

FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY OVERBREADTH CLAIM

Certified question number one requires us to pass upon the facial validity of the ordinance against a challenge that it violates minors’ rights of free speech and assembly as secured in article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of the Connecticut constitution. See footnote 18 of this opinion. We have not hesitated to consider facial challenges premised upon free speech claims. See, e.g., State v. Linares, 232 Conn. 345, 363-87, 655 A.2d 737 (1995); State v. Williams, 205 Conn. 456, 472-74, 534 A.2d 230 (1987); State v. Proto, 203 Conn. 682, 705-10, 526 A.2d 1297 (1987). We have done so “to vindicate two substantial interests: (1) eliminating the statute’s ‘chilling effect’ on others who fear to engage in the expression that the statute unconstitutionally prohibits; and (2) acknowledging that every defendant has the right not to be prosecuted for expression under a consti*812tutionaily overbroad statute.” State v. Linares, supra, 364. We have considered such facial challenges premised upon free speech rights guaranteed under both the state; see id., 377-87; and the federal constitution. See id., 363-76.

Richard Ramos claims that, because we have construed the Connecticut constitution to bestow greater expressive rights upon the public than the federal constitution; id., 379-81; the ordinance’s exception exempting from liability a minor “exercising his/her [f]irst [a]mendment rights”; Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1); see footnote 16 of this opinion; is not sufficient to save it from facial invalidity as being overbroad in violation of article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of our state constitution. The defendants claim that the mere fact that the Connecticut constitution may, in certain circumstances, afford greater expressive rights than the federal constitution, does not establish that the absence of an express exception in the ordinance for expressive rights protected under the Connecticut constitution violates the state constitution. We agree with the defendants.

A

We begin our consideration of this claim with a discussion of the general principles of constitutional adjudication relevant to an overbreadth challenge. “The essence of an overbreadth challenge is that a statute [or ordinance] that proscribes certain conduct, even though it may have some permissible applications, sweeps within its proscription conduct protected by the [freedom of speech]. Secretary of State v. J. H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 968, 104 S. Ct. 2839, 81 L. Ed. 2d 786 (1984); City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 798-801, 104 S. Ct. 2118, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984); Husti v. Zuckerman Property Enterprises, Ltd., 199 Conn. 575, 587, 508 A.2d 735, appeal dismissed, *813479 U.S. 802, 107 S. Ct. 43, 93 L. Ed. 2d 6 (1986).” State v. Proto, supra, 203 Conn. 707.

“[I]t is a necessary predicate to free speech analysis that the government’s action has, in some way, implicated the free exercise of speech. State v. Ball, 226 Conn. 265, 270, 627 A.2d 892 (1993). In other words, if the statute regulates conduct only, i.e., conduct which has no arguable expressive component, then such regulation does not impermissibly curtail freedom of speech. . . . Free speech scrutiny, in order to protect expression adequately, must be triggered by a threshold finding that particular' government regulation has the incidental effect of burdening expression. See [id.]. Thus, although consideration of particular expressive conduct’s effect on the legislature is relevant to determine, under the rubric of free speech analysis, whether the government may constitutionally prohibit that conduct, such consideration of the effect cannot be used to preclude the constitutional inquiry from ever taking place.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 364-65 n.15. “A single impermissible application of [an ordinance], however, will not be sufficient to invalidate the [ordinance] on its face; rather, to be invalid, [an ordinance] must reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 364.20 Finally, as with all consti*814tutional challenges, “[a] party attacking the constitutionality of a validly enacted [ordinance] bears the heavy burden of proving its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Breton, 212 Conn. 258, 269, 562 A.2d 1060 (1989); Zapata v. Burns, 207 Conn. 496, 507-508, 542 A.2d 700 (1988). We will indulge in every presumption in favor of the [ordinance’s] constitutionality; State v. Breton, supra [269]; and, when called upon to interpret [an ordinance], we will search for an effective and constitutional construction that reasonably accords with the [town council’s] underlying intent.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Floyd, supra, 217 Conn. 79. Specifically, we have “the power to construe [ordinances] narrowly to comport with the constitutional right of free speech.” State v. Williams, supra, 205 Conn. 473; see id., 473-74 (construing narrowly statute proscribing interfering with peace officer to save it from overbreadth challenge).

B

Turning now to the merits of the overbreadth challenge, we begin by noting that Richard Ramos and the defendants correctly note that an analysis “ ‘separate and distinct’ ”; State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 381; from federal constitutional analysis is appropriate when considering free speech claims under the state constitution. Richard Ramos, however, has stated that the defendants are mistaken in claiming that a plaintiff cannot prevail on a state constitutional challenge without providing such a separate and distinct argument. Richard Ramos states in his brief that “[the defendants’] position is inconsistent with this court’s approach in Linares, where the court conducted a separate state constitutional analysis of the impact of the restriction itself to determine whether free speech rights were restricted . . . .” (Emphasis added.) This is a misreading of Linares. It is not this court’s obligation to conduct a separate and distinct analysis, but, rather, the chai *815 lenging party’s burden to provide such an argument. “We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the [party] has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the [party’s] claim .... State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 721-22, 631 A.2d 288 (1993); see also State v. Williams, 231 Conn. 235, 245 n.13, 645 A.2d 999 (1994); State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 458 n.4, 625 A.2d 791 (1993); State v. Rosado, 218 Conn. 239, 251 n.12, 588 A.2d 1066 (1991).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 319 n.19, 732 A.2d 144 (1999). Although we conclude that Richard Ramos has not abandoned his free speech claim under the state constitution, he clearly has, for reasons hereinafter provided, failed to articulate an argument that bears “the heavy burden of proving [the ordinance’s] unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Floyd, supra, 217 Conn. 79.

The ordinance establishes the following offense. “Curfew for Minors. It shall be unlawful for any minor to remain, idle, wander, stroll or play in any public place or establishment in the Town during curfew hours unless . . . the minor is exercising his/her [f]irst [a]mendment rights.” (Emphasis added.) Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1). Thus, the ordinance clearly evinces an intent to free a minor who is exercising his first amendment rights during curfew hours from liability under the ordinance.

Richard Ramos correctly claims that in State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 377-87, we concluded that the Connecticut constitution bestowed greater expressive rights on the public than the federal constitution. Therefore, he claims, that “by definition” the exception for “[fjirst [a]mendment rights”; Curfew Ordinance § 8-*8164 (c) (1); does not include free speech rights protected by the Connecticut constitution. Although we recognize that the reference in the ordinance is, perhaps, unartful, we nevertheless disagree with the assertion that the exception in the ordinance does not apply to speech protected under the state constitution. Rather, we read the phrase as an abbreviation for a minor’s constitutional rights to expression and assembly, protected under either the federal or state constitution. Although, generally, in discerning legislative intent, we engage in a lengthy analysis drawing upon several sources; see Shawmut Mortgage Co. v. Wheat, 245 Conn. 744, 748-49, 717 A.2d 664 (1998); such an exercise is unnecessary. In this instance, we need only to point to two factors that confirm that the exception in the ordinance includes free speech rights protected by the Connecticut constitution. First, we note that the text of Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1) is not confined to “first amendment rights under the United States constitution.” (Emphasis added.) Second, and more important, is that Richard Ramos’ suggestion—that by using the phrase “[f]irst [a]mendment rights,” the town intended to exclude corresponding rights under the state constitution—runs afoul of the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that dictates that we read legislation to avoid, rather than raise, constitutional challenges. Because other curfew ordinances have been struck down precisely because they did not contain an exception for constitutionally protected rights of expression and assembly; see Nunez v. San Diego, 114 F.3d 935, 949 (9th Cir. 1997); we presume that the town intended to avoid such a potential constitutional infirmity. To read the exception as not embracing state constitutional rights of free expression and assembly would be to thwart that goal.

Additionally, Richard Ramos has failed to make any argument as to why the ordinance itself violates the *817free speech clauses of our state constitution.21 In order to prevail on a claim under the state constitution, he would need to identify the specific additional expressive rights recognized under the state constitution, and describe how such rights are infringed upon by the ordinance.22 State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 345, itself makes this clear. The lack of such an analysis precludes any conclusion that speech or conduct protected by the state constitution is involved or that the ordinance has a sufficiently substantial impact on such protected speech or expressive conduct to render it unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reject Richard Ramos’ claim that the ordinance facially violates minors’ rights of free speech and assembly as secured in article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of the Connecticut constitution.

C

In addition to his claim that the absence of an exception in the ordinance for expressive rights indepen *818 dently guaranteed under our state constitution renders the ordinance invalid, Richard Ramos also claims that, “[e]ven to the extent that the scope of protected free speech rights may be coextensive under the state and federal constitutions, the conclusory language of the exception is too imprecise to provide adequate protection for the exercise of free speech rights.” (Emphasis added.) We conclude, for reasons hereinafter provided, that to the extent that such rights are equivalent under the state and federal constitution, such a claim is beyond the scope of the certified question, and indeed, beyond the purview of the certification statute pursuant to which we accepted this case. Public Act No. 99-107 provides federal courts with authoritative answers to questions regarding state law. It is not designed, as Richard Ramos’ argument suggests, to provide this court with the ability to review federal questions that are being litigated in the appropriate federal fora.

The relevant certified question is “[w]hether [the town’s ordinance] violates minors’ rights of free speech and assembly as secured by Article First, §§ 4, 5, and 14, of the Connecticut constitution?” (Emphasis added.) By accepting this certified question, we agreed to determine whether “the protections afforded to the citizens of this state by our own constitution go beyond those provided by the federal constitution, as that document has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112, 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166, 537 A.2d 446 (1988). . . . State v. Geisler, [222 Conn. 672, 684, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992)], quoting State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 160, 579 A.2d 58 (1990).” (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 379. If we were to consider whether the ordinance violated rights not independently guaranteed under the state constitution, we essentially would be granting Richard Ramos *819review of his federal constitutional claim in this court, notwithstanding the existence of a federal District Court opinion on his claim; Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Vernon, supra, 48 F. Sup. 2d 176; and an appeal pending in the federal Court of Appeals. See Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Vernon, United States Court of Appeals, Docket No. 99-7772 (2d Cir. 2000). Given the procedural posture in this case, in which Richard Ramos sought to adjudicate federal constitutional questions in federal court, we decline the invitation to consider state constitutional questions other than those that implicate rights that “go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 379.

Ill

CERTIFIED QUESTION NUMBER TWO: SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAIM

Certified question number two requires us to consider the facial validity of the ordinance against a challenge that it violates minors’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution. See footnote 18 of this opinion. Unlike challenges premised upon the over-breadth doctrine discussed in part II of this opinion, we previously have not considered a facial challenge premised upon the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.23 We have not, however, refused *820to consider such a challenge either. Federal courts have considered facial challenges premised upon the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures located in the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. See, e.g., Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 614, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1989) (considering facial challenge to drug testing program); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Skinner, 885 F.2d 884, 894 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (same). We see no basis upon which to distinguish these cases and believe that there is no reason to have a significantly more restrictive body of law regarding facial challenges premised upon the search and seizure provision in our state constitution. Accordingly, we consider Richard Ramos’ facial challenge premised upon article first, § 7, on the merits.

Richard Ramos claims the ordinance violates minors’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The defendants argue in response that, because the ordinance itself proscribes the presence of minors in a public place during curfew hours,24 if an officer has “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 654, 613 A.2d 1300 (1992); is violating the curfew, then the seizure of a person is valid under the state constitution. We agree with the defendants.

In order to prevail on his claim under the state constitution, as we noted in part II of this opinion, Richard Ramos must establish that the ordinance violates rights that “go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 379. We agree with Richard Ramos that we previously have con-*821eluded that, in certain circumstances, article first, § 7, affords more expansive protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the federal constitution. See, e.g., State v. Oquendo, supra, 223 Conn. 649. We disagree, however, with his argument that the ordinance violates minors’ rights under the state constitution because it provides the predicate for suspicionless investigatory stops of minors and thereby subjects them to capricious seizures.

We begin by noting that article first, § 7, does not confer an “absolute right to be free from searches and seizures, a right that cannot be limited by the government’s power to criminalize certain forms of behavior.” Waters v. Barry, supra, 711 F. Sup. 1138. Rather, the seizure of a minor by a law enforcement officer comports with constitutional requirements if the officer effectuating the seizure has a “ ‘particularized and objective basis’ State v. Oquendo, supra, 223 Conn. 654; for concluding that the minor is engaged in a proscribed activity.

“Article first, §§ 7 and 9 of our state constitution permit a police officer in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner to detain an individual for investigative purposes even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. State v. Mitchell, [204 Conn. 187, 195, 527 A.2d 1168, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927, 108 S. Ct. 293, 98 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1987)]; State v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172, 184, 579 A.2d 484 (1990). State v. Oquendo, [supra, 223 Conn. 654]. In determining whether the detention was justified in a given case, a court must consider if [b]ased upon the whole picture the detaining officers [had] a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. ... A court reviewing the legality of a stop must therefore examine the specific information available to the police officer at the time of the initial intrusion and any rational inferences to be derived *822therefrom. . . . These standards, which mirror those set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, [392 U.S. 1, 20-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)], with regard to fourth amendment analysis, govern the legality of investigatory detentions under article first, §§ 7 and 9 of our state constitution.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 643-44, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 924, 121 S. Ct. 299, 148 L. Ed. 2d 240 (2000).

Richard Ramos’ argument that the ordinance permits the police to detain a minor who, although apparently in violation of the imposed curfew, is not engaged in a wrongful activity, overlooks the fact that the ordinance itself defines conduct that gives rise to a particularized suspicion of wrongful conduct. By virtue of the terms of the ordinance, a minor engages in wrongful conduct by remaining in public during the prohibited hours, unless one of the enumerated exceptions listed in the ordinance applies. Thus, a police officer has a reasonable basis for suspecting that an individual is engaged in conduct that is proscribed by the ordinance, and thereby, ipso facto, wrongful, upon observing an individual who appears to be a minor in a public location after curfew, when one of the exceptions is not readily apparent. Therefore, when a police officer stops a minor in accordance with the terms of the ordinance, the detention is justified. Accordingly, Richard Ramos’ claim that the ordinance, on its face, violates article first, § 7, fails.

Our conclusion that the ordinance does not violate minors’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is consistent with the reasoning of other courts that have considered challenges to juvenile curfew ordinances under the fourth amendment to the federal constitution. See, e.g., Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Waters v. Barry, supra, 711 F. Sup. 1138. The court in Waters *823stated: “Although [the plaintiffs’] argument is here framed in terms of the Fourth Amendment, they are ultimately complaining only of the arbitrariness and irrationality of the substantive offense specified in the [District of Columbia’s curfew statute]. . . . The plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment argument is thus redundant in light of their substantive challenges to the [statute].” (Emphasis in original.) Waters v. Barry, supra, 1138 n.28.

Similarly, in this case, we conclude that the essence of Richard Ramos’ argument is his objection to the town’s criminalization, absent certain exceptions, of the public presence of juveniles during curfew hours. We consider these substantive constitutional challenges in parts II, IV, V, VI and VII of this opinion. The prohibitions in the ordinance themselves, however, provide valid substantive references for guiding a police officer in his or her determination of whether there exists a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Oquendo, supra, 223 Conn. 654.

IV

CERTIFIED QUESTION NUMBER THREE: PERSONAL LIBERTY CLAIM

Certified question number three requires us to pass upon the facial validity of the ordinance against a challenge that it violates minors’ rights of personal liberty as provided for under article first, § 9, of the Connecticut constitution. See footnote 18 of this opinion. As in parts II and III of this opinion, we first determine whether it is proper for a plaintiff to bring a facial challenge under article first, § 9, of the Connecticut constitution. Although not as common as facial challenges based upon the overbreadth doctrine, we previously have considered facial challenges premised upon article first, *824§ 9, of the Connecticut constitution. See State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 249-52, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1165, 115 S. Ct. 1133, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1095 (1995) (considering facial claim challenging death penalty); State v. Joyner, supra, 225 Conn. 457-72 (considering facial claim challenging statute requiring criminal defendants to prove insanity). Accordingly, we consider Richard Ramos’ challenge premised upon article first, § 9, on the merits.

We distill three distinct arguments from Richard Ramos in support of his claim under article first, § 9. None of the arguments, however, is persuasive. First, Richard Ramos correctly notes that we previously have concluded that article first, § 9, does not forbid investigatory stops if a police officer has “a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.” State v. Lamme, supra, 216 Conn. 184. Richard Ramos then argues that “the investigatory stops authorized by the curfew ordinance are not based on any suspicion that the individual being stopped has committed or is about to commit a crime.” We disagree. The investigatory stops authorized by the ordinance are based on a officer’s suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a violation of the ordinance itself. We rejected an identical argument in part III of this opinion with regard to Richard Ramos’ claim under article first, § 7. We find his reasoning similarly unpersuasive with regard to his claim under article first, § 9.

Second, Richard Ramos appears to argue that, because the ordinance allegedly lacks statutory or common-law authority, police stops based upon the ordinance are not “clearly warranted by law” as required by article first, § 9. To the extent that this argument is intended to be separate from the one rejected in the preceding paragraph, the basis for this assertion appears to be an argument that article first, § 9, requires *825municipal ordinances that restrict personal liberty to be authorized by either statutory or common-law authority in order to be valid. Richard Ramos has not pointed, however, to any authority, nor have we found any case law construing article first, § 9, to contain such a requirement. Therefore, we conclude that police stops pursuant to the ordinance are “clearly warranted by law”; Conn. Const., art. I, § 9; namely, they are authorized by the ordinance itself.

Third, Richard Ramos argues that article first, § 9, imposes “an independent state constitutional obligation of clarity in laws that authorize interference with personal liberty.” He argues that, as discussed in his vagueness challenge predicated upon article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution; see part VII of this opinion; the ordinance is “impermissibly vague because it fails to provide fair notice of what it prohibits [and that] [t]his infirmity constitutes an independent violation of the obligation of clarity imposed by [article first] § 9.” Beyond his mere assertion, however, that article first, § 9, imposes an “independent state constitutional obligation,” Richard Ramos has failed to make a legal argument that the vagueness standard applicable to challenges premised upon article first, § 9, is any more stringent than the standard imposed by article first, § 8. Therefore, because we conclude in part VII of this opinion that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of article first, § 8, we conclude that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of article first, § 9. Accordingly, we conclude that Richard Ramos’ claim that the ordinance, on its face, violates article first, § 9, fails.

V

CERTIFIED QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM

Certified question number four asks us to consider the facial validity of the ordinance against a challenge *826that it violates minors’ rights of equal protection as provided for under article first, §§ 1 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution. See footnote 18 of this opinion. We first must determine whether it is proper for a plaintiff to bring a facial challenge under these consitutional provisions.

We begin by noting that we previously have stated that “[t]he law governing equal protection claims is well established. To implicate the equal protection clauses under the state and federal constitutions ... it is necessary that the state statute in question, either on its face or in practice, treat persons standing in the same relation to it differently. . . . State v. Morales, [240 Conn. 727, 738-39, 694 A.2d 758 (1997)]; State v. Matos, [240 Conn. 743, 761, 694 A.2d 775 (1997)]; Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., [239 Conn. 708, 755, 687 A.2d 506 (1997)]. Consequently, [a litigant] must show, as a threshold matter, that [the ordinance], either on its face or as applied, treats similarly situated individuals differently.” (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Angel C., 245 Conn. 93, 125-26, 715 A.2d 652 (1998). Thus, we clearly have expressed a willingness to consider facial equal protection challenges under the state constitution.25 Guided by federal courts that routinely have considered equal protection challenges premised upon the federal constitution; see, e.g., Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 799, 117 S. Ct. 2293, 138 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1997) (considering facial challenge to law prohibiting assisted suicide premised upon equal protection clause in federal constitution); Batra v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 79 F.3d 717, 721 (8th Cir. *8271996) (“[m]ost equal protection cases involve facial or as-applied challenges to legislative action” [emphasis added]); we see no reason why our state constitutional facial challenge equal protection jurisprudence should be more restrictive than that applied to claims brought pursuant to the federal constitution. Accordingly, we consider Richard Ramos’ challenge premised upon article first, §§ 1 and 20, on the merits.

A

We begin by clarifying the scope of potential rights under the state constitution that we are considering. In order to prevail on his claim under the state constitution, as we noted in part II C of this opinion, Richard Ramos must establish that the ordinance violates rights that “go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Emphasis added.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 379. Therefore, we reject Richard Ramos’ argument that, because “the state constitution provides an independent source of protection . . . for rights that are also protected by the federal constitution,” we must consider whether rights that are coextensive under the state and federal constitution are violated by the ordinance. We conclude, for reasons provided in part II C of this opinion, that to the extent that such rights are equivalent under the state and federal constitution, such a claim is beyond the scope of the certified question.

Richard Ramos asserts that we have recognized that article first, §§ 1 and 20, “may provide greater protection than the federal constitution in appropriate cases.” (Emphasis added.) We agree that we have not foreclosed the possibility that, depending upon the facts and circumstances, the state constitution may afford greater protection than the federal constitution with regard to equal protection claims. See Barton v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc., 248 Conn. 793, 812-13 n.15, *828730 A.2d 1149 (1999) (noting that our previous case law “should not be read to suggest that the state equal protection provision can never have an independent meaning from the equal protection provision in the federal constitution”). In order to prevail on such a claim under the state constitution, however, Richard Ramos must identify the specific additional rights to equal protection recognized under the state constitution, and describe how those rights are infringed upon by the ordinance. See id. (“[i]f a party does not provide an independent analysis asserting the existence of greater protection under the state constitutional provision than its federal counterpart . . . the federal equal protection standard is considered prevailing for the purposes of our review of both the state and federal equal protection claims”). We next consider whether Richard Ramos has provided such an argument.

B

Richard Ramos claims that “[e]nforcement of the Curfew Ordinance . . . burdens the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights protected by the state and federal constitutions.”26 The defendants claim that Richard Ramos has failed to establish that the ordinance violates the fundamental rights of minors. We agree with the defendants.27

*829We begin by providing the relevant constitutional framework for adjudicating such claims. “When a statute is challenged on equal protection grounds, whether under the United States constitution or the Connecticut constitution, the reviewing court must first determine the standard by which the challenged statute’s constitutional validity will be determined. If, in distinguishing between classes, the statute either intrudes on the exercise of a fundamental right or burdens a suspect class of persons, the court will apply a strict scrutiny standard wherein the state must demonstrate that the challenged statute is necessary to the achievement of a compelling state interest. ... If the statute does not touch upon either a fundamental right or a suspect class, its classification need only be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose in order to withstand an equal protection challenge.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barton v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc., supra, 248 Conn. 813-14.

We also again note that “as in any constitutional challenge to the validity of [an ordinance], the [ordinance] is presumed constitutional . . . and [t]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jason B., 248 Conn. 543, 558, 729 A.2d 760, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 967, 120 S. Ct. 406, 145 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1999). Thus, the heavy burden is on Richard Ramos to establish “beyond a reasonable doubt”; State v. Floyd, supra, 217 Conn. 79; that the ordinance infringes upon minors’ fundamental rights. We conclude, for reasons hereinafter provided, that Richard Ramos has not met that burden.

Richard Ramos claims that the ordinance violates minors’ “right to travel within the state,” and their “rights of free speech, freedom of association and free*830dom of assembly.”28 With regard to the latter three rights, however, he provides no additional argument beyond that which we previously rejected in part II of this opinion. Accordingly, we conclude that Richard Ramos has failed to establish that the ordinance implicates minors’ fundamental rights to free speech, association or assembly.

With regard to his argument that the ordinance violates minors’ state constitutional right to intrastate travel, his lone citation to Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, 192 Conn. 335, 472 A.2d 328 (1984), without any explanation as to the manner in which the nocturnal curfew ordinance at issue in this case is similar to the durational residency requirements at issue in Bruno, is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordinance violates the fundamental rights of minors. Therefore, we conclude that Richard Ramos has failed to establish that the ordinance violates minors’ right to travel within the state.

Richard Ramos also argues that u[m]ost of the courts that have addressed juvenile curfew laws, including the federal District Court in this case, have assumed that such laws implicate fundamental rights under the federal constitution.” (Emphasis added.) We agree with Richard Ramos, that some federal courts have made such an assumption with regard to rights under the federal constitution. See Nunez v. San Diego, supra, 114 F.3d 944; Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Vernon, supra, *83148 F. Sup. 2d 184.29 In contrast, other courts that have given fuller consideration to the question of whether a juvenile curfew ordinance violates minors’ fundamental rights have rejected such arguments. See Hutchins v. District of Columbia, supra, 188 F.3d 538 (plurality opinion). In any event, it is beyond dispute that it is far from universally accepted that juvenile curfews infringe upon minors’ fundamental rights under the federal constitution. See, e.g., id. Furthermore, even were such an assumption universally accepted, Richard Ramos would still need to establish that the fundamental rights of minors independently guaranteed under the state constitution are implicated by the ordinance. See part V A of this opinion. Thus, it is incumbent upon Richard Ramos to establish, rather than assume, that the ordinance violates minors’ fundamental rights. In the absence of any legal argument that such rights have been violated, we are compelled to conclude that Richard Ramos has failed to establish that the ordinance violates minors’ fundamental rights under the state constitution.

C

Having determined that Richard Ramos has failed to establish that the ordinance infringes upon any fundamental rights or suspect classes, we apply rational basis review of the ordinance to determine its constitutionality. “[E]qual protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and economic policy, a statu*832tory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. . . . The test ... is whether this court can conceive of a rational basis for sustaining the legislation; we need not have evidence that the legislature actually acted upon that basis. . . . Further, the Equal Protection Clause does not demand for purposes of rational-basis review that a legislature or governing decisionmaker actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barton v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc., supra, 248 Conn. 817-18.

We have no difficulty in ascertaining a rational basis for the ordinance. The District Court found that “the plaintiffs do not contend that [the town’s] reasons for enacting the curfew do not constitute important or compelling governmental interests.” Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Vernon, supra, 48 F. Sup. 2d 184. The District Court also found that, when the ordinance was enacted, there was a perception of increased drug and gang activity in the town, a sixteen year old town resident recently had been murdered, and a youth survey indicated that many of the youths in the town were concerned about guns and violence. Id., 185. It is certainly conceivable that the town council might have believed that the enactment of the ordinance would be rationally related to forwarding the town’s interest in “protecting their entire community from crime . . . and in protecting the safety and welfare of minors specifically . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Id., 184-85. Therefore, we conclude that the enactment of the ordinance was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Accordingly, Richard Ramos’ claim that the ordinance, on its face, violates article first, §§ 1 and 20, fails.

*833VI

CERTIFIED QUESTION NUMBER FIVE:

DUE PROCESS CLAIM

Certified question number five requires us to pass upon the facial validity of the ordinance against a challenge that it violates parents’ rights of due process as provided for under article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution. See footnote 18 of this opinion. We first determine whether it is proper for a plaintiff to bring a facial challenge under article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution. Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have routinely considered facial challenges premised upon the due process clause of the federal constitution. See, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 299-300, 113 S. Ct. 1439, 123 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1993) (considering facial challenge to immigration regulation); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846-53, 121 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1992) (considering facial attack to abortion statute); see generally M. Dorf, “Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes,” 46 Stan. L. Rev. 235 (1994); J. Ford, “The Casey Standard for Evaluating Facial Attacks on Abortion Statutes,” 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1443 (1997).

In contrast, our case law has reflected a reluctance to consider facial challenges premised upon the due process clause of the federal and state constitutions. See, e.g., City Recycling, Inc. v. State, 247 Conn. 751, 759, 725 A.2d 937 (1999) (declining to consider facial challenge to statute under due process clause of state constitution because “the [issue] of due process . . . can be addressed only in light of the facts of record” [emphasis added]); Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 222 Conn. 361, 368, 610 A.2d 652, cert. dismissed, 505 U.S. 1247, 113 S. Ct. 28, 120 L. Ed. 2d 952 (1992) (declining to consider facial challenge to replevin statute under due process clause of federal constitution *834because “[t]he fact that the [statute] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid”). These cases do not, however, stand for the proposition that we are uniformly unwilling to consider such challenges. Furthermore, in neither City Recycling, Inc., nor in Shawmut Bank, N.A., nor in any other case, have we articulated a reason why we should be significantly more restrictive in our consideration of due process facial challenges than federal courts. Indeed, we see no basis upon which to distinguish this federal case law. Accordingly, we consider Janet Ramos’ challenge to the ordinance premised upon article first, § 10, on the merits.

A

Janet Ramos claims that the ordinance violates her right to substantive due process under article first, § 10. She claims that we have recognized that parents have a fundamental constitutional right “to raise their children without excessive government interference”; Castagno v. Wholean, 239 Conn. 336, 343, 684 A.2d 1181 (1996); and that laws affecting parental autonomy are strictly scrutinized. Id., 344. She further claims that the curfew ordinance intrudes upon parental autonomy and is not narrowly drawn to address a compelling governmental interest as is required by the strict scrutiny standard of review. The defendants claim that Janet Ramos has failed to establish that parents have broader rights regarding the raising of their children under the state constitution than they do under the federal constitution. We agree with the defendants.

We begin by providing the relevant constitutional parameters within which we consider Janet Ramos’ state constitutional claims. Our case law construing the due process clause of the federal constitution provides a useful “framework for state constitutional analysis *835and in interpreting state constitutional provisions.” Fair Cadillac-Oldsmobile Isuzu Partnership v. Bailey, 229 Conn. 312, 317, 640 A.2d 101 (1994).30 To that end, although our previous case law considering substantive due process claims under our state constitution has not fully articulated the essence of such a challenge,31 the following quote describing the guarantees inherent in the due process clause of our federal constitution is also descriptive of the liberties contained in the due process clause in article first, § 10, of our state constitution. “It is axiomatic that the due process clause not only guarantees fair procedures in any governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property, but also encompasses a substantive sphere . . . barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them .... This basic protection embodies the democratic principle that the good sense of mankind has at last settled down to this: that [due process was] intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice. . . .

“Despite the important role of substantive due process in securing our fundamental liberties, that guarantee does not entail a body of constitutional law imposing *836liability whenever someone cloaked with state authority causes harm. . . . Rather, substantive due process has been held to protect against only the most arbitrary and conscience shocking governmental intrusions into the personal realm . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) ATC Partnership v. Windham, 251 Conn. 597, 605-606, 741 A.2d 305 (1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1214, 120 S. Ct. 2217, 147 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2000).

We note, however, that “it is clear that our adoption, for purposes of state constitutional analysis, of an analytical framework used under the federal constitution does not preclude us from concluding that a statute that would be valid under the federal constitution is nevertheless invalid under our state constitution.” Fair Cadillac-Oldsmobile Isuzu Partnership v. Bailey, supra, 229 Conn. 317. Indeed, in order to prevail on her claim under the state constitution, as we noted in part V A of this opinion, Janet Ramos must establish that the ordinance violates rights that “go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 379.

Although earlier case law indicated that “the due process provisions of both constitutions have the same meaning and the same limitations”; Caldor’s, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc., 177 Conn. 304, 314, 417 A.2d 343 (1979); Society for Savings v. Chestnut Estates, Inc., 176 Conn. 563, 569 n.5, 409 A.2d 1020 (1979); more recent case law has suggested that our state constitution may, in certain instances, afford greater substantive due process rights than the federal constitution. For example, in Fair Cadillac-Oldsmobile Isuzu Partnership v. Bailey, supra, 229 Conn. 316, a case involving a substantive due process challenge brought under the state constitution, we stated: “It is beyond dispute that we are not bound by federal precedents in interpreting *837our own state constitutional provisions. [FJederal decisional law is not a lid on the protections guaranteed under our state constitution.”32 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, supra, 249 Conn. 319 n.19 (declining to consider whether state constitution afforded greater substantive due process rights than federal constitution because issue not adequately briefed).

In this case, we need not consider, however, whether cases such as Caldor’s, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc., supra, 177 Conn. 304, and Society for Savings v. Chestnut Estates, Inc., supra, 176 Conn. 563, should be overruled expressly to the extent that they suggest that substantive due process analysis is identical under the state and federal constitution. That is because, irrespective of whether, in certain circumstances, the due process clauses of our state constitution may provide greater protections than federal substantive due process analysis, there is no support for the proposition that, in the circumstances relevant to this case, our state constitution affords any greater substantive due process rights than the federal constitution. As we discuss in the paragraphs that follow, Janet Ramos has provided no support for even the broad proposition that our state constitution contains greater rights of *838“family autonomy” than does the federal constitution.33 Likewise, there is nothing to support the more specific proposition that parents have a state constitutional right “to allow their children to be on the streets and in public places at all hours of the night without any adult supervision”; Ramos ex rel. Ramos v. Vernon, supra, 48 F. Sup. 2d 187; as the District Court in this case characterized Janet Ramos’ claim.

We begin by noting that our jurisprudence has identified a starting point for discovering fundamental rights guaranteed protection under our state constitution from “arbitrary and conscience shocking governmental intrusions into the personal realm . . . .” ATC Partnership v. Windham, supra, 251 Conn. 606. In State v. Ross, supra, 230 Conn. 246, we stated: “In determining the scope of our state constitution’s due process clauses, we have taken as a point of departure those constitutional or quasi-constitutional rights that were recognized at common law in this state prior to 1818.”

In this case, Janet Ramos has provided no historical evidence of any constitutional or quasi-constitutional *839rights maintained by parents that were recognized at common law in this state prior to 1818. Neither has she pointed to any case law in which we have concluded that the state constitution affords greater recognition of parental autonomy than the federal constitution. Although the primary case upon which she bases her argument stands for the proposition that the right to family autonomy is fundamental; Castagno v. Wholean, supra, 239 Conn. 344; that case does not even mention the Connecticut constitution. Therefore, Castagno does not stand for the proposition that rights of family autonomy are any greater under the Connecticut constitution than under the federal constitution. Neither does any other case upon which Janet Ramos bases her argument. See generally Ascuitto v. Farricielli, 244 Conn. 692, 711 A.2d 708 (1998); Dubayy. Irish, 207 Conn. 518, 542 A.2d 711 (1988); In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

Janet Ramos also cites to four federal cases construing juvenile curfew laws under the federal constitution that she claims support her contention that the ordinance in this case violates the state constitution. See Nunez v. San Diego, supra, 114 F.3d 949; Johnson v. Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065, 1074 (5th Cir. 1981); Waters v. Barry, supra, 711 F. Sup. 1128-31; McCollester v. Keene, 586 F. Sup. 1381, 1386 (D.N.H. 1984). Two of the four cases cited did not resolve any claim by a parent that a juvenile curfew ordinance violated his or her rights of substantive due process and, therefore, they are inapposite to the claim raised herein. See generally Johnson v. Opelousas, supra, 1065; Waters v. Barry, supra, 1125. Although the court in Nunez did hold that the curfew at issue in that case violated parents’ substantive due process rights under the federal constitution, it based its holding on the fact that “[t]he ordinance does not allow an adult to pre-approve even a specific activity after curfew hours unless a custodial adult actu*840ally accompanies the minor.” Nunez v. San Diego, supra, 952. The ordinance at issue in the present case, in contrast, expressly excepts from liability those minors involved in a “specific business or activity directed or permitted by his parent . . . .” Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1). Likewise, the curfew ordinance at issue in McCollester v. Keene, supra, 1386, did not contain a parental consent exception such as the one provided in the ordinance here. See McCollester v. Keene, 514 F. Sup. 1046, 1052 (D.N.H. 1981) (describing how parental liability could arise under ordinance if parent allowed minor to continue various specific activities beyond curfew), rev’d on jurisdictional grounds, 668 F.2d 617 (1st Cir. 1982), on remand, 586 F. Sup. 1381 (D.N.H. 1984). Thus, none of the federal cases cited by Janet Ramos provides support for her claim. Furthermore, we note that several other courts have upheld juvenile curfews against challenges from parents claiming infringement of their rights of due process under the federal constitution. See, e.g., Hutchins v. District of Columbia, supra, 188 F.3d 540-41; Schleifer v. Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843, 852-53 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018, 119 S. Ct. 1252, 143 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1999); Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488, 495-96 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. Qutb v. Bartlett, 511 U.S. 1127, 114 S. Ct. 2134, 138 L. Ed. 2d 864 (1994).

Therefore, given the absence of any persuasive argument from Janet Ramos with respect to any of the aforementioned Geisler factors; see footnote 22 of this opinion; we conclude that she has failed to demonstrate that the rights of parental autonomy are any greater under the Connecticut constitution than they are under the federal constitution. A fortiori, her claim that the ordinance implicates such alleged fundamental rights fails.

B

Having concluded that Janet Ramos has not established that the ordinance implicates any fundamental *841rights, we apply rational basis review of the ordinance. See, e.g., State v. Jason B., supra, 248 Conn. 560 (rational basis review applies to substantive due process claims that do not infringe upon fundamental rights). Equal protection rational basis review is “for all material purposes . . . indistinguishable from the analysis in which we would engage pursuant to a due process claim. See State v. Matos, supra, 240 Conn. 750 (test in rational basis review under substantive due process doctrine is whether the challenged [ordinance] has [a] reasonable relationship to any legitimate state purpose” . . . ); Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., supra, 239 Conn. 756 (under rational basis equal protection review, [i]f the [ordinance] does not touch upon either a fundamental right or a suspect class, its classification need only be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose in order to withstand an equal protection challenge ...)....” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wright, 246 Conn. 132, 144, 716 A.2d 870 (1998). We previously concluded, in considering Richard Ramos’ equal protection claim, that the ordinance was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. See part V C of this opinion. Therefore, we conclude, for purposes of Janet Ramos’ substantive due process claim, that there is a rational basis for the ordinance. Accordingly, Janet Ramos’ claim that the ordinance, on its face, violates article first, § 10, fails.

VII

CERTIFIED QUESTION NUMBER SIX:

VAGUENESS CLAIM

The plaintiffs’34 final claim is that the ordinance is facially invalid because it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. See footnote 18 of this opinion. They claim that *842the ordinance: (1) is not precise enough to provide police with the guidance necessary to avoid arbitrary intrusions into the lawful activities of Connecticut residents; and (2) interferes with the rights of free speech and assembly because the ordinance’s first amendment exception; Curfew Ordinance § 8-4 (c) (1); is not sufficiently precise to protect against arbitrary enforcement under the state constitution. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs have failed to make any showing that the due process clause in the state constitution as it applies to a vagueness challenge affords any greater rights or protections than does the federal constitution. According to the defendants, in the absence of such a showing, the plaintiffs’ claim must fail. We agree with the defendants.

A

We begin by discussing the plaintiffs’ ability to bring a facial35 challenge premised upon the claim that the law is unconstitutionally vague. “Where penal statutes . . . implicate rights protected by the first amendment, their meaning must be capable of precise ascertainment in order to repel a vagueness challenge. . . . Where first amendment rights are at stake, vague laws may cause citizens to avoid constitutionally protected conduct for fear of incurring criminal prosecution. . . . Due to this chilling effect which vague statutes can exert on first amendment liberties, [however] when those freedoms are at stake, the statute’s constitutionality is tested for vagueness on its face.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Proto, supra, 203 Conn. 696-97; see also State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 355 (“[P]erhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law *843is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If, for example, the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362, reh. denied, 456 U.S. 950, 102 S. Ct. 2023, 72 L. Ed. 2d 476 [1982], State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 803-804, 640 A.2d 986 [1994].” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]).

Our case law also has suggested that it may be possible to bring a facial vagueness challenge outside of the context of free speech when a fundamental constitutional right is alleged to be violated by a law. See State v. Wilchinski, 242 Conn. 211, 217, 700 A.2d 1 (1997) (“[a]ssuming, without deciding, that [the challenged statute] implicates a fundamental constitutional right, and further assuming that we would be willing to engage in a facial vagueness analysis outside the context of the first amendment, we need not do so in this case”); State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 777, 695 A.2d 525 (1997) (implying in dicta that facial challenge is appropriate when any fundamental constitutional right is challenged on vagueness grounds); State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 355 (same); State v. Pickering, 180 Conn. 54, 62-63, 428 A.2d 322 (1980) (same).36

We now consider whether the plaintiffs’ claim fits within either of these two categories. We begin by noting that, although the plaintiffs attempt to raise a vagueness claim implicating the right of free speech in their reply brief, their vagueness claim in their principal brief is devoid of any free speech argument. “It is a *844well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312, 699 A.2d 921 (1997); State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81, 97 n.23, 675 A.2d 866 (1996).

To the extent that the plaintiffs raised any free speech vagueness claim in their initial brief, the claim was raised in the “overbreadth” section of the brief.37 As we noted previously, however, claims of vagueness and overbreadth are distinct claims. See footnote 20 of this opinion. We are not bound to consider either claim unless each is distinctly raised. See State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. 798 n.4.

Even if we were willing to consider that the claim raised in the overbreadth section of the plaintiffs’ principal brief constituted a free speech vagueness claim, that claim does not entitle the plaintiffs to review for a separate reason. As we concluded in part II C of this opinion, that claim fails to make any argument that “the protections afforded to the citizens of this state by our own constitution go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 379. Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to raise any claim that the ordinance is facially vague because it infringes upon free speech rights independently guaranteed under the state constitution.

As we have discussed herein, our case law has also suggested that it may be possible to bring a facial vagueness challenge when a fundamental constitutional *845right, other than free speech, is alleged to be violated by an ordinance. Even if we were to assume, without deciding, that the challenged ordinance’s alleged vagueness in the “authoriz[ation] [of] excessive police discretion” implicates a fundamental constitutional right,38 and further that we would be willing to engage in a facial vagueness analysis outside the context of the first amendment, the plaintiffs’ claim fails for the reasons outlined in part, VII B of this opinion.

B

“Under the requirements of due process of law mandated by our federal and state constitutions, [an ordinance] must be sufficiently definite to enable a person to know what conduct, he must avoid. State v. Proto, [supra, 203 Conn. 696]; State v. Pickering, [supra, 180 Conn. 59-60] .... [An ordinance] which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926) . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, supra, 205 Conn. 469-70.

Furthermore, and particularly relevant for this case, “[w]e have equated vagueness analysis under our state constitution with the corresponding federal constitu *846 tional analysis. See State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 533, 680 A.2d 147 (1996); State v. DeFrancesco, 235 Conn. 426, 443, 668 A.2d 348 (1995); State v. Linares, [supra, 232 Conn. 376-77]; Bishop v. Kelly, 206 Conn. 608, 611, 539 A.2d 108 (1988); State v. White, 204 Conn. 410, 414 n.1, 528 A.2d 811 (1987); State v. Proto, [supra, 203 Conn. 696]; State v. Eason, 192 Conn. 37, 45 n.9, 470 A.2d 688 (1984), overruled in part, Paulsen v. Manson, 203 Conn. 484, [491] 525 A.2d 1315 (1987).” (Emphasis added.) Packer v. Board of Education, 246 Conn. 89, 99, 717 A.2d 117 (1998).

In this case, the plaintiffs claim that the curfew is facially vague because it is “designed to authorize excessive police discretion.” As with Richard Ramos’ overbreadth challenge, the plaintiffs fail to make any legal argument,39 independent of their factual allegations regarding the motivations behind the town council's enactment of the ordinance, and their factual allegations regarding enforcement of the ordinance, that the protections against vague statutes embodied in the due process clause of the state constitution “go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 379.40

In order to prevail on a claim under the state constitution, the plaintiffs would need to begin by identifying why our previous case law equating “vagueness analysis under our state constitution with the corresponding federal constitutional analysis”; Packer v. Board of Edu *847 cation, supra, 246 Conn. 99; is incorrect. Next, the plaintiffs would need to identify the additional due process rights recognized under the state constitution, and describe how such rights are infringed upon by the vagueness of the ordinance.41 In contrast, the plaintiffs in this case have not put forth any legal argument that our previous case law in this area was mistaken.

Therefore, “[w]e need not dwell on the [plaintiffs’] vagueness claims under the Connecticut constitution. . . . [We] cannot discern any reason ... to analyze these issues any differently under the Connecticut constitution .... [The plaintiffs have] failed to persuade us that our state constitution mandates a different analysis [than federal constitutional analysis] or contrary result.” (Citations omitted.)State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 376-77. Accordingly, even if we were to assume that a stringent test should apply to the plaintiffs’ claim; see part VII A of this opinion; we reject the plaintiffs’ claim that the ordinance is facially vague in violation of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.

VIII

CONCLUSION

The answer to certified questions one through six is: No.

No costs will be taxed in this court to either party.

In this opinion BORDEN, NORCOTT, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., concurred.

SULLIVAN, J.,

with whom MCDONALD, C. J., joins, concurring in part and concurring in the result. I agree with parís I, II and VII of the majority opinion. I would, however, for the reasons hereinafter provided, refuse *848to consider the facial challenges corresponding to certified questions two through five. Accordingly, I concur only in the result with respect to parts III, IV, V and VI of the majority opinion.

Certified questions two through five invite this court to pass upon the facial validity of the juvenile curfew ordinance of the named defendant, the town of Vernon (town), against challenges predicated upon article first, §§ 1, 7, 9, 10 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution. This court has shown a clear willingness to consider facial challenges under the state constitution in two limited areas: (1) free speech claims predicated upon the overbreadth doctrine; e.g., State v. Linares, 232 Conn.. 345, 377-78, 655 A.2d 737 (1995); and (2) claims premised upon the vagueness doctrine. See, e.g., Benjamin v. Bailey, 234 Conn. 455, 482-84, 662 A.2d 1226 (1995). Therefore, I agree with the majority’s consideration of the plaintiffs’1 challenges premised upon over-breadth and vagueness in parts II and VII of the majority opinion, respectively.2

In contrast, this court is reluctant to consider facial challenges involving constitutional issues outside of these limited contexts. See Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 222 Conn. 361, 368, 610 A.2d 652, cert. dismissed, 505 U.S. 1247, 113 S. Ct. 28, 120 L. Ed. 2d 952 (1992) (“[t]he fact that the [Act] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid, since we have not recognized an ‘overbreadth’ doctrine *849outside the limited context of the First Amendment”).3 This court recently reaffirmed this view in City Recycling, Inc. v. State, 247 Conn. 751, 725 A.2d 937 (1999), in which this court stated: “It is a settled rule of constitutional adjudication that a court will decide the constitutionality of a statute only as it applies to the particular facts at hand.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 758. Accordingly, for the reasons provided in parts I, II and III of this opinion, I would decline to consider the plaintiffs’ facial 4 constitutional challenges predicated upon article first, §§ 1 and 20 (equality of rights and equal protection), article first, § 7 (search and seizure), article first, § 9 (freedom from unwarranted arrest), and article first, *850§ 10 (right of redress), of our state constitution because I conclude that these “issues . . . can be addressed only in light of the facts of record.” Id., 759.

I

I begin with general principles of constitutional adjudication relevant to certified questions two through five. As this court recently observed in City Recycling, Inc., “the reserved5 questions as phrased require us to pro*851nounce upon the facial validity of [the statute]. ... A party who challenges the constitutionality of a statute must prove that the statute has adversely affected a protected interest under the facts of his [or her] particular case and not merely under some possible or hypothetical set of facts not proven to exist. . . .

“This principle reflects the conviction that under our constitutional system courts are not roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of legislative enactments. . . . The effect of an answer in the affirmative to any one of the reserved questions would be to declare [the statute] unconstitutional in its entirety. . . . We are bound never to anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it [and] never to formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.* ****6 ... A judicial holding *852that a legislative Act is unconstitutional is one of very grave concern. We ought not, and will not, declare a statute to be unconstitutional unless our judgment is formed in the light of this rule of our law: It is our duty to approach the question with caution, examine it with infinite care, make every presumption and intendment in its favor, and sustain the Act unless its invalidity is, in our judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .

“These principles of constitutional jurisprudence are no less pertinent . . . merely because the issues have been presented by way of reservation.* ***7 This court declared long ago that our reservation procedures do not contemplate, and ought not to be construed to permit, that every question which a trial court may encounter .. . might be brought here at once upon its being either met or scented from afar .... We recognized that such a practice might inevitably result in this court being called upon to formulate principles of law which would never enter into the determination of a cause, to formulate such principles in an abstract form suited to more or less general application and not as related to a concrete state of facts and narrowed and simplified by such relation, to create a mass of dicta embodying statements of abstract general principles which might *853some day rise up to harass judicial action, and to unnecessarily multiply the number of appearances in this court which an action might have before final disposition was made of it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 758-59.

This court’s hesitancy to pass upon facial constitutional claims outside of the areas of overbreadth and vagueness, discussed in parts II and VII of the majority opinion, respectively, is long-standing in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., id., 759 (“the issues of due process and equal protection of the law [under our state constitution] can be addressed only in light of the facts of record”); Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, supra, 222 Conn. 368 (declining to consider facial challenge under due process clause of federal constitution because “[t]he fact that the [Act] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Floyd, 217 Conn. 73, 88, 584 A.2d 1157 (1991) (“[T]he present record is inadequate to establish a factual basis for the defendants’ asserted liberty interests, for essentially the same reasons that it is inadequate to support their claims under the fourth amendment. Decisions construing substantive liberty interests protected by the due process clause emphasize the fact-bound and relative nature both of the interests protected and of the procedural protections required by the constitution.”); Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 527, 461 A.2d 938 (1983) (“[This] case [involves] a facial attack [premised on the separation of powers doctrine of the state constitution] on the constitutionality of a statute which has a sphere of operation that need never intrude upon the exclusive province of the judiciary to control the conduct of attorneys as officers of the court. We cannot, of course, exclude the possibility that, at some time in the future, *854a more difficult confrontation will have to be resolved. Judicial restraint counsels us to await that event.”); Weil v. Miller, 185 Conn. 495, 501, 441 A.2d 142 (1981) (rejecting facial procedural due process claim under state and federal constitutions because “[according to well-established principles, a plaintiff who challenges the constitutionality of a statute must prove that the statute has adversely affected a constitutionally protected right under the facts of his [or her] particular case and not merely under some possible or hypothetical set of facts not proven to exist” [internal quotation marks omitted]); Kellems v. Brown, 163 Conn. 478, 483, 313 A.2d 53 (1972), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1099, 93 S. Ct. 911, 34 L. Ed. 2d 678 (1973) (declining to consider “questions reserved [that address challenges under the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution and that] are not limited to the situation of the particular plaintiffs” and noting that “answers [supplied in the opinion] are applicable only within the limited context of the specific facts covered by the stipulation agreed on by the parties to [the] action”).

II

With these principles in mind, I turn to the specific certified questions. Certified questions four and five invite this court to determine whether the ordinance facially violates the equal protection rights of minors and the due process rights of the parents, respectively.8 I first discuss Richard Ramos’ equal protection claim. Our case law dealing with equal protection claims has reflected the importance that this court attaches to crafting constitutional doctrine only in cases in which *855an adequate factual record9 is presented. See, e.g., City Recycling, Inc. v. State, supra, 247 Conn. 759 (“the issues of due process and equal protection of the law [under our state constitution] can be addressed only in light of the facts of record” [emphasis added]); Dubay v. Irish, 207 Conn. 518, 528, 542 A.2d 711 (1988) (when plaintiff claims parental immunity doctrine violates equal protection clause of state constitution “plaintiff bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that, under the particular facts of [the] case, the parental immunity doctrine violates . . . constitutional rights” [emphasis added]); see also Barton v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc., 248 Conn. 793, 800, 730 A.2d 1149 (1999); Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, 192 Conn. 335, 339, 472 A.2d 328 (1984).10

For example, in Barton v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc., supra, 248 Conn. 793, this court stated: “Before proceeding, we note that the reserved questions [which deal with claims under the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions] are too broad for us to answer as framed. In evaluating the constitutionality of statutes, we are mindful of the principle that [a] party mounting a constitutional challenge *856to the validity of a statute must provide an adequate factual record in order to meet its burden of demonstrating the statute’s adverse impact on some protected interest of its own, in its own particular case, and not merely under some hypothetical set of facts as yet unproven.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 800.11

Similarly, in Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 192 Conn. 335, a case involving an equal protection challenge under the federal constitution to a residency requirement for employment, this court stated: “[In Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, 184 Conn. 246, 440 A.2d 155 (1981)] [w]e opined that the record was not adequate for this court to determine the durational residency rule’s constitutionality and that a determination as to its constitutionality must await the development, at the trial level, of a sufficiently complete record: ‘[T]he . . . record [in the case] is deficient because it contains no evidence or factual determinations concerning the governmental interests advanced by the rule, the degree to which the means employed by the rule are tailored to achieve its legislative objectives, or the extent to which various rights of the plaintiff are affected by the rule.’ . . . [Id., 251].” Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 339.12 Therefore, I would conclude that the issue of “equal protection of the law can be addressed only in light of the facts of *857record.” (Emphasis added.) City Recycling, Inc. v. State, supra, 247 Conn. 759. Accordingly, with respect to certified question number four, I would decline to consider Richard Ramos’ facial claim premised upon article first, §§ 1 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution.

I next discuss Janet Ramos’ facial due process claim. In none of the cases cited by Janet Ramos in support of her due process claim did this court consider a facial challenge13 under the due process clause of our state constitution. See generally Ascuitto v. Farricielli, 244 Conn. 692, 711 A.2d 708 (1998); Castagno v. Wholean, 239 Conn. 336, 684 A.2d 1181 (1996); Dubay v. Irish, supra, 207 Conn. 518; In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 420 A.2d 875 (1979). On the contrary, as with this court’s equal protection jurisprudence, the case law dealing with claims under the due process clause of the state constitution has manifested this court’s belief in the benefit of developing constitutional doctrine only in cases in which an adequate factual record exists. See, e.g., City Recycling, Inc. v. State, supra, 247 Conn. 759; State v. Floyd, supra, 217 Conn. 88; Weil v. Miller, supra, 185 Conn. 501; Kellems v. Brown, supra, 163 Conn. 483.

The plaintiffs also cite to a number of decisions that have addressed whether a particular curfew ordinance violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal constitution. See Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531, 536 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Schleifer ex rel. Schleifer v. Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018, 119 S. Ct. 1252, 143 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1999); Nunez v. San Diego, 114 F.3d 935, 944, 951 (9th Cir. 1997); Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488, 492 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. *858 Qutb v. Bartlett, 511 U.S. 1127, 114 S. Ct. 2134, 128 L. Ed. 2d 864 (1994); Waters v. Barry, 711 F. Sup. 1125, 1138 (D.D.C. 1989); McCollester v. Keene, 586 F. Sup. 1381, 1386 (D.N.H. 1984).14 In the present case, however, only state constitutional issues are before the court.15 Therefore, I would conclude that, with respect to certi*859fied question number five, our conclusion in City Recycling, Inc. that “the [issue] of due process . . . can be addressed only in light of the facts of record”; (emphasis added) City Recycling, Inc. v. State, supra, 247 Conn. 759; governs. Accordingly, I would decline to consider Janet Ramos’ facial claim premised upon article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution.

Ill

Certified questions two and three invite this court to determine whether the ordinance facially violates the rights of minors to be free from: (1) unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution; and (2) unwarranted arrest, detention or punishment as secured by article first, § 9, of the Connecticut constitution.16 In all of the cases cited in support of Richard Ramos’ claims under article first, §§ 7 and 9, this court had a factual record upon which to determine the reach of the constitutional provision at issue. See State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 639-40, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 924, 121 S. Ct. 299, 148 L. Ed. 2d 240 (2000); State v. White, 229 Conn. 125, 147-48, 640 A.2d 572 (1994); State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 640-42, 613 A.2d 1300 (1992); State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 677-79, 695, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992); State v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172, 175-76, 579 A.2d 484 (1990); State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 152, 579 A.2d 58 (1990); State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 100-103, 123-25, 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Morrill, 205 Conn. 560, 562-64, 534 A.2d 1165 (1987); State v. *860 Scully, 195 Conn. 668, 669-72, 675-76, 490 A.2d 984 (1985); Cinque v. Boyd, 99 Conn. 70, 71-73, 94, 121 A. 678 (1923).17 In contrast, this court demonstrated its reluctance to facially invalidate a statute pursuant to a search and seizure claim in State v. Floyd, supra, 217 Conn. 73. In Floyd, we reversed a trial court’s decision that a statute violated the fourth amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures because “[t]he balancing of societal interests against personal interests required to analyze the reasonableness of an action under the fourth amendment demands that the court consider all the relevant facts. Absent such a consideration, the court’s invalidation of the statute as applied is in effect an invalidation of the statute on its face, and its judgment cannot be sustained.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 85.

The foregoing case law reflects the highly fact dependent nature of constitutional jurisprudence under both article first, § 7; id., 83 (search and seizure “jurisprudence is pervasively fact-bound, whether the issue is the scope of the amendment itself . . . the definition of a seizure ... or the appraisal of the reasonableness of a particular governmental intrusion” [citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]); and article first, § 9; see, e.g., State v. White, supra, 229 Conn. 152-53 (reviewing our fact laden jurisprudence under article first, § 9, of Connecticut constitution).18 Answering certified questions two and three would require this court *861to shape its constitutional doctrine in an area governed by such fact dependent doctrines as the “totality of the circumstances”; State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 317, 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841, 121 S. Ct. 106, 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000); in the absence of any such circumstances upon which to base its judgment. Therefore, I would conclude that the rationale for refusing to consider facial challenges under the state constitution discussed in parts I and II of this opinion; see, e.g., City Recycling, Inc. v. State, supra, 247 Conn. 758-59; is equally applicable to Richard Ramos’ claims premised upon the search and seizure and unwarranted arrest provisions of the state constitution. Accordingly, I would decline to consider certified questions two and three.19

Accordingly, I concur with parts I, II and VII of the majority opinion and concur only in the result with respect to parts III, IV, V and VI of the majority opinion.

Opinion

PALMER, J.

This certified appeal raises an important issue of first impression in this state, namely, whether a municipality constitutionally may restrict access to a municipal park to its residents and their guests. We conclude that such a restriction is prohibited by the first amendment to the United States constitution1 and *321article first, §§ 4,253 and 14,4of the Connecticut constitution.

The plaintiff, Brenden P. Leydon, commenced this action against the named defendant, the town of Greenwich (town), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the enforcement of a town ordinance6 limiting *322access to Greenwich Point Park (Greenwich Point), a town park with a beachfront on the Long Island Sound, to residents of the town and their guests.6 Thereafter, the defendant Lucas Point Association, Inc. (association), which owns a road located on property adjacent to Greenwich Point over which the town holds an easement providing the only means of land access to Greenwich Point, successfully moved to intervene. Following a court trial, the court rejected the plaintiffs claims and rendered judgment for the defendants.7 On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the ordinance violates a state common-law doctrine pursuant to which municipal parks are deemed to be held in trust for the benefit of the general public and not solely for the use of residents of the municipality. Leydon v. Greenwich, 57 Conn. App. 712, 719, 750 A.2d 1122 (2000). The Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment for the plaintiff; id., 727; who, as we have indicated, sought injunctive and declaratory relief against both the town and the association. Thereafter, *323we granted the town’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff was entitled as a matter of law to an injunction enjoining the [town] from limiting the use of Greenwich Point, including its beach area, to inhabitants of the town?” Leydon v. Greenwich, 254 Conn. 904, 755 A.2d 881 (2000). We also granted the association’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude, in effect, that the plaintiff was entitled as a matter of law to an injunction enjoining the [association] from limiting the use of the easement that it had granted to the . . . town ... to residents of the town?” Leydon v. Greenwich, 254 Conn. 905, 755 A.2d 882 (2000).

With respect to the town’s appeal, we agree with the Appellate Court that the plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief barring the town from restricting the use of Greenwich Point to town residents and their guests. Our conclusion, however, rests not on common-law principles, but, rather, on the federal and state constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of association. With respect to the association’s appeal, we agree with the Appellate Court that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment against the association. We disagree with the Appellate Court, however, that the plaintiff also is entitled to injunctive relief against the association.

I

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this case. Greenwich Point is a town owned, 147 acre park facility that includes a beachfront on the Long Island Sound. The park area contains a number of ponds, a marina, a parking lot, open fields, a nature preserve, shelters, walkways and *324trails, and picnic areas with picnic tables. There also is a library book drop located on the beach.

The only land access to Greenwich Point is over a narrow, broccoli stem shaped piece of land known as Tod’s Driftway (driftway), which is owned by the association, a private association of landowners who reside in the residential area adjacent to Greenwich Point. The town holds an easement over a private road on the driftway that provides the only means by which a person seeking to enter Greenwich Point by land may do so.

The Greenwich Point area, the driftway and the surrounding area all originally were owned by Frelinghuysen Ferris. Ferris conveyed the Greenwich Point area to J. Kennedy Tod on March 30, 1892. Ferris later granted an easement over the driftway to Tod on October 17, 1892, while retaining title to the driftway and other land. The easement permitted Tod to construct a road over the driftway connecting Greenwich Point to the mainland highway and to use that road to access his property.

Soon after Ferris granted the easement to Tod, Ferris transferred the driftway and surrounding areas in fee simple to Edwin J. Lucas. Those two areas became known as Lucas Point. After Tod’s completion of the road over the driftway around 1909, Tod and Lucas amended and reaffirmed the terms of Tod’s easement over the driftway. The boundaries of both properties, as set forth in a 1915 survey that listed the Greenwich Point parcel at approximately 147.21 acres, were the same as the boundaries currently in place.

Tod maintained Greenwich Point as a residence until his death on July 16, 1926, upon which he devised it to the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital (hospital), subject to a possessory life estate in Tod’s wife. Tod’s wife died in 1938, at which time the hospital became the fee owner of Greenwich Point.

*325During the 1920s and 1930s, Lucas developed Lucas Point into a residential area. In 1942, the homeowners on Lucas Point formed and incorporated the association. On June 20, 1950, after Lucas’ death, his executor recorded the transfer of all rights in the driftway to the association, although it appears that the association had been the beneficial owner of the driftway since the association’s formation in 1942.

In 1944, the association became aware of the town’s decision to purchase Greenwich Point from the hospital for the puipose of converting it into a beach park.8 At its meeting of October 1, 1944, the association passed a resolution providing, inter alia, that it was “not opposed to the purchase of [Tod’s] Point by the [t]own . . . subject, however, to the following [condition] . . . [that the town] [l]imit the use of the area to Greenwich residents.” At a town meeting on November 9, 1944, the town approved a policy restricting the use of Tod’s Point to “residents, taxpayers, lessees and their bona fide guests of the [t]own . . . .” Minutes of the meetings of the town’s board of selectmen and the board of estimate and taxation also reflect the adoption of this policy. The town purchased Greenwich Point on January 10, 1945, but did not codify the residency requirement until 1977, when it adopted the ordinance that is the subject of this appeal and that restricts access to Greenwich Point to town residents and their guests. See footnote 5 of this opinion.

*326On August 15, 1994, after crossing the driftway without interference from the town or the association, the plaintiff, a resident of Stamford, attempted to enter Greenwich Point at its main gate. He was refused admission, however, because he did not have a beach pass as required by the ordinance.9 Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for a beach pass, but his application was denied in accordance with the provision of the ordinance authorizing the issuance of beach passes to town residents only.

The plaintiff then filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the town, claiming, inter alia, that the ordinance violates: (1) the first amendment to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14,10 of the Connecticut constitution, both as applied to him and on its face; and (2) a state common-law doctrine under which municipal parks are held in trust by the municipality for the use of all members of the public.11 The association successfully moved to *327intervene, and the plaintiff amended his complaint to include a count against the association. In that count, the plaintiff claimed that any agreement that the association purported to have with the town to restrict the use of Greenwich Point to town residents and their guests was unenforceable as against public policy. The plaintiff also sought injunctive relief against the association.12

After a court trial, the court rejected each of the plaintiffs claims. The court first addressed the plaintiffs constitutional claim. With respect to the plaintiffs contention that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs intended use of Greenwich Point, namely, to “ ‘exchang[e] ideas and information with other park users,’ ” did not implicate his protected right to communicate. The trial court concluded that it was “not persuaded that the plaintiffs conduct touches upon [constitutionally protected] elements of communication. Simply stated, the plaintiff has failed to provide the court with evidence which would establish that he intended to enter [Greenwich] Point in order to express himself in any manner, regardless of whether the communication would be protected by the state and federal constitutions . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

The trial court explicated its reasoning in rejecting the plaintiffs claim as follows: “The plaintiff implicates the first amendment (and its state counterparts) by *328asserting that he was prevented from exchanging ideas and information with other park users. However, the plaintiff has not provided the court with sufficient evidence which proves that the [ordinance] prevented him, or anyone from exchanging ideas with anyone else.

“The plaintiff has shown only that he was denied access to Greenwich Point ... by a town employee stationed at the gate . . . because he did not have a beach pass and was not accompanied by a [town] resident. The court is convinced that the town’s subsequent denial of a pass to the plaintiff had absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiffs desire to engage in expression. Rather, the town denied him a pass because it has an ordinance limiting its granting of passes to [town] residents.

“The court finds that the town does not have an ordinance, as the plaintiff would have the court believe, preventing nonresidents from accessing [Greenwich] Point. The town’s [ordinance] require[s] only that a nonresident desiring entry to [Greenwich] Point be accompanied by a [town] resident. Therefore, if the plaintiff truly intended to express himself on [Greenwich] Point, he would have been able to do so, unimpeded, if he were accompanied by a [town] resident.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The court continued: “In the present case, the court is not convinced that the plaintiff ever intended to enter [Greenwich] Point in order to engage in the expression of an idea. And, if he had, the court is not persuaded that the subject [ordinance] prevented the plaintiff, or any nonresident, from accessing [Greenwich] Point for purposes of protected expression.”13

*329Finally, the trial court, consistent with its analysis of the plaintiffs claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied, summarily rejected the plaintiffs over-*330breadth claim. Specifically, the court stated: “The challenged [ordinance has] . . . no . . . effect on the first amendment protections of any party.” (Emphasis added.)

The trial court next addressed, and rejected, the plaintiffs claim that, under state common law, all members of the public are entitled to use municipally owned and operated parks. Although the trial court recognized that dicta from several of this court’s cases suggest that town parks are held in trust for the benefit of all members of the public and not just for the benefit of town residents,14 the court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of such a common-law doctrine.15 Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants.

*331Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment to the Appellate Court, which concluded that, contrary to the determination of the trial court, the plaintiff had established his common-law claim. In so concluding, the Appellate Court stated: “For almost two centuries, [the Connecticut] Supreme Court has discussed the concept that land held by a municipality as a public park or public beach is held for the use of the general public and not solely for use by residents of the municipality.16 . . . These [Supreme *332Court] cases clearly reflect that land held by a municipality as a public park or public beach is for the benefit of all residents of this state.”17 (Citations omitted.) Leydon v. Greenwich, supra, 57 Conn. App. 718-19.

The town claimed that, even if the Appellate Court properly had recognized this common-law doctrine,18 the legislature had abrogated the doctrine with respect to the town by virtue of a 1919 special act19 authorizing *333the town to “establish, maintain and conduct public parks . . . [and] bathing beaches . . . for the use of the inhabitants of [the] town.” (Emphasis added.) 18 Spec. Acts 103, No. 124 (1919). In particular, the town asserted that the use of the words “for the use of the inhabitants of said town”; id.; evinced an intent by the legislature to permit the town to maintain its parks and beaches for the exclusive use of its residents. The Appellate Court rejected the town’s argument, concluding that, because the special act was devoid of express language abolishing the common-law doctrine vis-a-vis the town, it could not be presumed that the legislature intended such a result. Leydon v. Greenwich, supra, 57 Conn. App. 724. The Appellate Court thereupon reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case “with direction to render judgment for the plaintiff.” Id., 727.

On appeal to this court, the defendants contend that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the trial court’s judgment. We disagree with the defendants. Unlike the Appellate Court, however, we base our conclusion on the protections afforded under the first amendment to the federal constitution and article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of the state constitution.20 We, therefore, conclude that *334the plaintiff is entitled to: (1) a judgment against the town declaring that the ordinance is unenforceable; (2) a judgment against the association declaring that any agreement that it had entered into with the town in 1945 to limit access to Greenwich Point to town residents and their guests is unenforceable; and (3) a permanent injunction against the town, but not against the association, prohibiting the town from enforcing the ordinance. We also conclude that, to the extent that the Appellate Court’s judgment required the trial court to issue an injunction against the association precluding it from limiting access over the driftway, that judgment must be reversed.

II

We first examine the plaintiffs claim under the first amendment to the federal constitution. He contends *335that the ordinance violates the first amendment as applied and on its face. We agree.

Before reviewing the substantive first amendment principles governing our review of the plaintiffs federal constitutional claim, we briefly explain the overbreadth doctrine. “A clear and precise enactment may ... be overbroad if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct. ... A single impermissible application of a statute, however, will not be sufficient to invalidate the statute on its face; rather, to be invalid, a statute must reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. ... A [plaintiff] may challenge a statute as facially overbroad under the first amendment, even if the [plaintiffs] conduct falls within the permissible scope of the statute, to vindicate two substantial interests: (1) eliminating the statute’s chilling effect on others who fear to engage in the expression that the statute unconstitutionally prohibits; and (2) acknowledging that every [person] has the right not to be prosecuted for expression under a constitutionally overbroad statute.”21 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, 232 Conn. 345, 364-65, 655 A.2d 737 (1995); see also Ramos v. Vernon, 254 Conn. 799, 811, 761 A.2d 705 (2000) (“[this court has] not hesitated to consider facial challenges premised upon free speech claims”). Thus, the plaintiff has standing to raise a facial overbreadth challenge to the ordinance and may prevail on that claim if he can establish that the ordinance reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct even though he personally did not engage in such conduct. See State v. Linares, supra, 364. We now turn to the applicable first amendment law.

*336The scope of the government’s power to limit speech or other first amendment activity on public property depends on the type of forum involved. See, e.g., Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 677-78, 118 S. Ct. 1633, 140 L. Ed. 2d 875 (1998); Perry Educational Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 44-46, 103 S. Ct. 948, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1983). “When a regulation restricts the use of government property as a forum for expression,22 an initial step in analyzing whether the regulation is unconstitutional is determining the nature of the government property involved. . . . The nature of the property determines the level of constitutional scrutiny applied to the restrictions on expression. . . . The [United States] Supreme Court has delineated three categories of government-owned property for purposes of the First Amendment: the traditional public forum, the designated public forum, and the nonpublic forum.” (Citations omitted.) United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d *3371231,1237 (11th Cir. 2000); cf. Perry Educational Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., supra, 45-46.

In State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 345, this court recently summarized the basic principles of the traditional public forum doctrine: “[T]he first amendment in all contexts forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 [104 S. Ct. 2118, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772] (1984). . . . Viewpoint neutral regulations, however, can be determined to be unconstitutional only after they have been analyzed under a forum based approach. Perry Educational Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., [supra, 460 U.S. 45-46].

“In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. . . . [Such locations include] streets and parks which have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 [59 S. Ct. 954, 83 L. Ed. 1423] (1939). In these quintessential public forums, the government may . . . enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. [Perry Educational Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn.], supra, 460 U.S. 45. Such close scrutiny is appropriate in these forums because such properties possess long-standing traditions of public usage.”23 (Citations omitted; internal *338quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 366-67. Thus, “[t]he forum-based approach for First Amendment analysis subjects to the highest scrutiny the regulation of speech on government property traditionally available for public expression.” Loper v. New York City Police Dept., 999 F.2d 699, 703 (2d Cir. 1993), citing International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678, 112 S. Ct. 2701, 120 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1992); see also Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1972) (“[t]he right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons”). See generally International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, supra, 696 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgments) (“The liberties protected by [the public forum] doctrine derive from the Assembly, as well as the Speech and Press Clauses of the First Amendment, and are essential to a functioning democracy. . . . Public places are of necessity the locus for discussion of public issues, as well as protest *339against arbitrary government action.” [Citation omitted.]).

Thus, it “is clear that modem public forum analysis under the United States constitution focuses first on the category of public property at issue in the case. . . . Only after a court has labeled a particular public property as a traditional, designated or nonpublic forum does the court then consider to what extent the government may restrict speech there. . . . Because restrictions on speech in public forums receive the highest level of scrutiny and those in nonpublic fomms are subject to the lowest ... a court’s initial categorization of property, as a practical matter, necessarily determines whether a particular restriction on speech will be invalidated.”24 (Citations omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 369; see also Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 797, 105 S. Ct. 3439, 87 L. Ed. 2d 567 (1985) (“[the court] must identify the nature of the forum, because the extent to which the Government may limit access depends on whether the forum is public or nonpublic”).

Upon application of these principles, we conclude that Greenwich Point is a traditional public forum because it has the characteristics of a public park. Indeed, our research indicates that each of the several federal courts that has considered the question of whether a beach park like Greenwich Point is a traditional public forum has found that it is.25 For example, *340in Naturist Society, Inc. v. Fillyaw, 958 F.2d 1515, 1522 (11th Cir. 1992), the court concluded that John D. MacArthur Beach State Park (park) in Florida is a public forum. In Fillyaw, members of the Naturist Society, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation that advocates a “ ‘clothing optional’ lifestyle”; id., 1517; wished to demonstrate in the park. Id. The park manager issued a permit allowing the group to distribute literature but placed several restrictions upon the group’s proposed demonstration. See id. Upon concluding that the park was a traditional public forum, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the restrictions constituted reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Id., 1523. In reaching its conclusion that the park constituted a public forum, the court focused on the objective characteristics of the park, such as the presence of certain traditional park elements, including parking lots, a nature center and walkways.26 Id., 1522; see also *341 United States v. Frandsen, supra, 212 F.3d 1237 n.4 (citing Fillyaw and finding error in the district court’s conclusion that Canaveral National Seashore in Florida was not traditional public forum); Smith v. Fort Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[Eleventh Circuit] precedent conclusively establishes that the Fort Lauderdale Beach area . . . consisting of beach and sidewalk spaces ... is a public forum”).

A federal district court in the Second Circuit also has considered the question of whether a beach park is a public forum. In Paulsen v. Lehman, 839 F. Sup. 147, 161 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), the court concluded that Jones Beach State Park in New York is a traditional public forum. The court in Paulsen found the reasoning in Naturist Society, Inc. v. Fillyaw, supra, 958 F.2d 1515, “germane” and “compelling”; Paulsen v. Lehman, supra, 160; especially in light of “the striking similarities [between Jones Beach State Park and] the forum in Fillyaw . . . .’’Id. The court proceeded to adopt the reasoning of Fillyaw with regard to the characteristics of the beach park forum; id., 160; see Naturist Society, Inc. v. Fillyaw, supra, 1522-23; and noted that Jones Beach State Park contains, among other things, picnic areas, parking areas, play areas and biking areas. *342 Paulsen v. Lehman, supra, 159.27 The court in Paulsen also relied on Gerritsen v. Los Angeles, 994 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1993), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s contention that certain “blue-line areas” in El Pueblo Park of Los Angeles, California, were distinct from the rest of the park for public forum purposes. Id., 576. According to the defendant, one area had a “unique historic and cultural atmosphere . . . designed to foster commercial exchange”; id.; while another area was “semi-private in nature and [had] particular functions to carry out . . . necessitating] separation from activities in other areas of [El Pueblo Park].” Id. This argument failed to persuade the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that the areas were “indistinguishable from other sections of the park in terms of visitors’ expectations of [their] public forum status.” Id. Accordingly, the blue-line areas were held to be part of the larger part of El Pueblo Park, which is a traditional public forum. Id.

In view of the fact that Greenwich Point contains shelters, ponds, a marina, a parking lot, open fields, a nature preserve, walkways, trails, picnic areas with picnic tables, a library book drop and a beach, it is clear that Greenwich Point qualifies as a park for purposes of *343first amendment analysis.28 The fact that Greenwich Point has a boundary on the Long Island Sound that serves as a beach for swimming, sun bathing and other activities in no way alters its character as a park. As such, it is a traditional public forum.29

“The government can exclude a speaker from a traditional public forum only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, supra, 523 U.S. 677, quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, supra, 473 U.S. 800. “In a public forum, by definition, all parties have a constitutional right of access and the State must demonstrate compelling reasons for restricting access to a single class of speakers . . . .” Perry Educational Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., supra, 460 U.S. 55. Traditional public fora have “objective characteristics . . . [that] require the government to accommodate private speakers.” Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, supra, 678.

In Warren v. Fairfax County, 196 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 1999), an en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of *344Appeals struck down as unconstitutional county restrictions that limited use of a large, grassy mall30 to “county residents, county employees, and county non-profits . . . .” Id., 189. In Warren, the court determined that the mall had the “characteristics of a traditional public forum.” Id. Accordingly, the court concluded that the defendant’s “exclusion of [nonresidents was] not a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction.” Id., 198 (addendum to majority opinion). Moreover, the exclusion was not “narrowly tailored to achieve compelling state interests.” Id. (addendum to majority opinion). The court proceeded to describe the compelling interests that the county had offered in justifying the exclusion. “[Even if it is] assumfed] that at least some of [the] interests [proffered by the defendant] are compelling, the residents only policy must be struck down because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve any of these ends. While narrow tailoring under the time, place, and manner standard does not require use of the least-restrictive alternative . . . the [defendant] may not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further its interests .... [In this case] the [defendant’s] policy burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further any of its asserted interests. The [defendant] has closed this public forum to the entire world of speakers except the class of qualified persons. The same interests could be achieved with much less burden by the simple expedients of charging fees for upkeep and monitoring costs . . . .” (Citations omit*345ted.) Id., 198 (addendum to majority opinion);31 see also Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Daytona Beach, 54 F. Sup. 2d 1283, 1288 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (“[Granting the [vehicular] passes proposed in the [Traffic Management Plan only to] Daytona Beach residents, registered hotel guests, and business owners and their employees does not comport with the First Amendment’s guarantee that the right of assembly will not be tied to an individual’s economic status or residence. . . . [The plan] constitute^] an unwarranted impediment to freedom of assembly in the Daytona Beach area.”). Succinctly put, “the First Amendment does not permit government to condition a speaker’s access to a public forum on whether the speaker has support in or an indigenous relationship with the local community.” Million Youth March, Inc. v. Safir, 18 F. Sup. 2d 334, 344 n.65 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).32

*346In the present case, the town has failed to explain why the ordinance’s virtual ban on nonresidents is a reasonable time, place or manner restriction on the use of the park by such nonresidents. Moreover, even if we assume that the town has a compelling interest in restricting nonresident access to the park—an assumption that finds no support in the record—the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to accomplish that end. See, e.g., Warren v. Fairfax County, supra, 196 F.3d 198. Consequently, the ordinance does not pass federal constitutional muster.

It is apparent, moreover, that the ordinance violates the first amendment both as applied to the plaintiff and for substantial overbreadth. With respect to the former ground for finding the ordinance unconstitutional, the town lawfully cannot bar the plaintiff from Greenwich Point due solely to the fact that he is a nonresident because the park is a public forum. Perry Educational Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., supra, 460 U.S. 55 (“[i]n a public forum, by definition, all parties have a constitutional right of access”). Furthermore, the ordinance bars a large class of nonresidents, namely, all nonresidents who cannot find a resident host, from engaging in a multitude of expressive and associational activities at Greenwich Point. See, e.g., J. Stevens, “The Freedom of Speech,” 102 Yale L.J. 1293, 1298 (1993) (“constitutionally protected forms of communication include [inter alia] parades, dances, artistic expression, picketing, wearing arm bands . . . [and] music”). Because the town’s restriction on the use of Greenwich Point by nonresidents cannot be justified on the ground *347that it is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling need, the ordinance is facially overbroad.33 The ordinance, therefore, cannot withstand scrutiny under the first amendment, either as applied to the plaintiff or as applied to other nonresidents who might wish to enter Greenwich Point.

Ill

We now turn to the plaintiffs claim under article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of the state constitution. We agree with the plaintiff that the ordinance also violates these provisions of the state constitution, both as applied to the plaintiffs conduct in this case and on its face.

This court explicitly has stated that the Connecticut constitution, under article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, provides greater protection for expressive activity than that provided by the first amendment to the federal constitution. State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 880-81.34:M In Linares, *348we declined “to follow the modem, forum based approach currently employed . . . under the first amendment . . . .” Id., 379. Instead, we adopted the “compatibility” test set forth in Grayned v. Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. 104, under which “the crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.” Id., 116; see State v. Linares, supra, 379. Under that standard, the state cannot restrict a person’s access to public property unless that person intends to engage in expressive activity that is “basically incompatible” with the customary use of the property at the time in question. See State v. Linares, supra, 386-87. “This emphasis on basic compatibility, rather than on categorization of particular types of public property, reflect[s] [this] court’s attempt to serve the [constitutionally important] value of maximizing social communication.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 378.

In Linares, we underscored the fact that the Grayned test “is designed to maximize the speech which the government is constitutionally required to tolerate, consistent with the appropriate and needful use of its property. This design flows naturally from the first amendment’s central objective of ensuring uninhibited, robust, and wide-open public debate.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 383-84.35 This approach, we concluded, reflects the fact *349that “article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14 . . . include . . . language that suggests that our state constitution bestows greater expressive rights on the public than that afforded by the federal constitution.. . . [T]hese differences warrant an interpretation separate and distinct from that of the first amendment. . . . We are persuaded that Grayned,'s fact specific, flexible approach will offer more protection to freedom of speech as envisioned in our state constitution.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 380-81.36

The challenged ordinance unquestionably violates the plaintiffs right to engage in protected expressive and associational activities under the more speech protective test that we have adopted for purposes of article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of our state constitution. The plain*350tiffs stated reason for seeking admission to Greenwich Point, namely, to associate with others at the park and to exchange ideas and information, implicates constitutionally protected conduct that is entirely compatible with activities customarily engaged in at Greenwich Point. See State v. Linares, supra, 232 Conn. 378. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to prevail on his as applied state constitutional challenge to the ordinance.

The ordinance also is facially overbroad in violation of the state constitution37 because it “sweeps within its proscription conduct protected by . . . [state constitutional principles of freedom of expression and association].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ramos v. Vernon, supra, 254 Conn. 812. One easily can conceive of a wide range of core expressive and associations! activity in which a nonresident might wish to engage at Greenwich Point that is perfectly compatible with the customary or normal activity there. Although the number and kind of such activities virtually are limitless, they would include sitting or walking on the beach in a T-shirt that expresses a particular political view or religious conviction, distributing literature or pamphlets in the parking lot, walkway or at a picnic table, participating in a silent vigil anywhere in the park, and soliciting signatures for a petition at the entrance to the park.38 Under the challenged ordinance, however, a nonresident who is unable to find a town resident to accompany him or her to Greenwich Point will be unable to engage in any such protected activity. The *351ordinance, therefore, cannot withstand the plaintiffs state constitutional overbreadth challenge.39

IV

In light of our conclusion that the town cannot restrict access to Greenwich Point on the basis of residency, we also must address: (1) the plaintiffs claim that any agreement between the town and the association to restrict access to Greenwich Point is unenforceable; (2) the association’s claim that the use of the easement over its property is restricted to town residents and their guests;40 and (3) the plaintiffs claim that he is entitled to injunctive relief against the association. We conclude that any agreement between the town and the association is unenforceable and, furthermore, that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the association *352declaring as much. For the reasons that follow, we also reject the association’s contention that, on the basis of its 1945 agreement with the town, the easement over its property may be used only by town residents and their guests.41 We conclude, however, that the plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief affecting the property rights of the association.

The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the foregoing issues. On appeal to this court, the association relies on the trial court’s dictum in its memorandum of decision that uthe easement granted to the town was done . . . with the intention that only Greenwich residents (and their guests) use the easement.” (Emphasis added.) In particular, the association claims that the court’s finding supports its contention that a new easement, that is, one that superseded the original 1892 easement, was created in 1945. If the association is correct, then the current easement is restricted to Greenwich residents and their guests.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, maintains that any agreement between the town and the association in 1945 did not create a new easement.42 He claims, rather, that any such mutual understanding was, at most, an agreement pursuant to which the association promised not to oppose the town’s purchase of Greenwich Point in return for the town’s promise to adopt a residents only policy for Greenwich Point. Under this view, the agreement does not run with the land; it merely constitutes a bilateral agreement entered into by the parties *353to promote: (1) the town’s interest in purchasing Greenwich Point; and (2) the association’s interest in limiting the number of persons who would need to traverse its property to gain access to Greenwich Point. We agree with the plaintiff that a new easement was not created in 1945.

We note, first, that the association did not claim, either at trial or in its pretrial or posttrial briefs, that a new easement (that is, an easement the scope of which superseded the scope of the easement granted by Ferris to Tod in 1892) had been created over the driftway by virtue of the mutual promises of the town and the association. Rather, the association asserted that: (1) it had resolved not to oppose the sale of Greenwich Point to the town on condition that the town adopt a residents only policy; (2) the town, in light of the association’s resolution, adopted a residents only policy; and (3) the association, in reliance on that policy, did not oppose the sale.

For several reasons, it is quite clear that the 1945 agreement did not create a new easement.43 First, neither the town nor the association raised any such claim in the trial court; indeed, there is absolutely nothing in the record of the trial court proceedings to suggest that the town or the association conceived of the agreement in such a manner. In fact, the trial court’s statement regarding the “easement granted to the town” is the very first time that anyone involved in this case ever had suggested that the parties’ agreement effected a new easement. Second, the association’s arguments at trial were inconsistent with a contention that a new easement was created in 1945. For example, counsel *354for the association expressly represented to the trial court that maintenance of the residents only policy “is the only way that legally enforceable rights of the association can be protected.”44 If the 1945 agreement did, in fact, give rise to a new easement, then the association could have protected its “rights” simply by enforcing the residents only restriction of that new easement. Third, the trial court’s memorandum of decision is devoid of any discussion of the 1892 easement; indeed, the memorandum of decision contains no reference whatsoever to the 1892 easement, to the history of the relevant properties or to their use prior to 1994 when the plaintiff sought to gain entrance to Greenwich Point. Finally, it is doubtful that the agreement meets the legal requirements of an easement due to: (1) a lack of evidence to establish the parties’ intent, in 1945, to extinguish the 1892 easement and create a new easement; and (2) the manner in which the parties’ agreement was memorialized.45 It is apparent, therefore, that the trial court’s dictum indicating that a new easement was created in 1945 is incorrect both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. Thus, the association cannot prevail on its claim that, on the basis of the trial court’s finding, the easement over its property is limited to residents.

We turn next to the issue of what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to against the association. As we previously have indicated; see footnote 12 of this opinion; the plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the *355association has no right to the enforcement of the town’s residents only policy. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is unconstitutional, we agree with the plaintiff that enforcement of the association’s 1945 agreement with the town would be contrary to public policy. The plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to a declaratory judgment providing that the agreement is unenforceable.

The plaintiff, in his prayer for relief, also sought an injunction against both the town and the association prohibiting them from “limiting [his] entry and access to” Greenwich Point. See footnote 12 of this opinion. The plaintiff, however, is not entitled to any further declaratory or injunctive relief against the association. With respect to declaratory relief, the plaintiff sought nothing more than a declaration that the agreement between the town and the association affords the association no right to enforcement of the terms of the ordinance. With respect to injunctive relief, the plaintiff has not established—indeed, he never tried to establish—that the unconstitutionality of the ordinance requires the association to grant him access over its property to Greenwich Point.

The plaintiff asks us to affirm, inter alia, that part of the judgment of the Appellate Court directing the trial court to grant the plaintiff injunctive relief against the association. The plaintiffs sole basis for such a request, however, is his contention that the Appellate Court was correct in its reasoning that the public trust doctrine required that he be granted access to Greenwich Point over the association’s driftway. As we explained previously; see footnote 17 of this opinion; the public trust doctrine does not extend that far. Furthermore, neither the federal constitution nor the state constitution governs private, as opposed to governmental, conduct in this realm. See, e.g., Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 U.S. 507, 513, 96 S. Ct. 1029, 47 L. Ed. *3562d 196 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government . . . [and] while statutory or common law may in some situations extend protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution itself’); Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 59-63, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (concluding that state constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of expression were intended to protect against state action as opposed to private conduct). On this record, therefore, the plaintiff has presented no persuasive reason why the Appellate Court’s reasoning vis-a-vis the association should be sustained.

It may be that, under applicable property law or other legal doctrines, the plaintiff and other nonresidents have a right to use the easement created over the drift-way in 1892 to gain access to Greenwich Point, the dominant estate, from the property of the association, the servient estate. To the contrary, however, it may be that, if the easement were opened to all persons, it would become overburdened; see Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 254 Conn. 502, 513, 757 A.2d 1103 (2000) (“the owner of the easement appurtenant may not materially increase the burden of the easement upon the servient estate”); or that other applicable property law or other legal doctrines would allow the association to limit the use of the easement, or that, failing such limitation, the easement would revert to the association and cease to exist. These issues were not fully explored or litigated at trial and certainly were not fully determined by the trial court. The resolution of these issues will have to await the outcome of what the parties do or do not do in the wake of this decision and will depend on what further remedies any of them may *357seek.46 Insofar as the plaintiffs claims against the association are concerned, the issue in this case is limited to whether the association has a right to enforcement of the ordinance’s residency requirement. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment that purports to settle the property rights of the association.

As we have noted; see part I of this opinion; the Appellate Court directed the trial court “to render judgment for the plaintiff.” Leydon v. Greenwich, supra, 57 Conn. App. 727. As we also have noted, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief against both *358the town and the association. It thus appears that the Appellate Court directed the trial court to render judgment against the town declaring the ordinance unenforceable and enjoining the town from denying the plaintiff access to Greenwich Point. In those respects, the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. It also appears, however, that the Appellate Court directed the trial court to render judgment against the association declaring that the association is not entitled to enforcement of the ordinance and enjoining the association from denying the plaintiff access to Greenwich Point via the association’s property. Insofar as the judgment of the Appellate Court directs the trial court to render judgment granting the plaintiff declaratory relief against the association, the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed; insofar as the judgment of the Appellate Court directs the trial court to render judgment granting the plaintiff injunctive relief against the association, the judgment of the Appellate Court should be reversed.

That part of the judgment of the Appellate Court directing the trial court to render judgment for the plaintiff enjoining the association from denying the plaintiff access to Greenwich Point via the association’s property is reversed and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court only as to the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief against the association. The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed in all other respects.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

*52Opinion

McCONNELL, J.

INTRODUCTION

A former law librarian whose employer discharged him after he sent a scathing e-mail criticizing his superiors appeals the trial court’s decision to grant summary adjudication as to the state law causes of action in his wrongful termination action. We conclude the granting of summary adjudication was proper under the circumstances and affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In late February 2006,1 a representative from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) contacted the San Diego County Public Law Library (Library) seeking a panel member for a program about helping self-represented litigants with appeals. The program was part of an AOC conference on self-represented litigants. A Library staff member referred the representative to Michael Kaye, a reference librarian who taught the Library’s appellate course for self-represented litigants. The AOC representative asked Kaye to be a panel member. Because Kaye’s supervisor, Joan Alien-Hart, was on sick leave that week, Kaye requested permission to participate in the program from Robert Riger, the Library’s director and Alien-Hart’s supervisor. Riger immediately approved Kaye’s request. Riger was also attending the conference, but planned to leave midmoming on the last day.

When Alien-Hart learned of the invitation, she questioned its genesis and why, as a matter of protocol, it had not been routed through her or Riger first. Riger directed Gail Lawrence, the Library’s financial officer, to inquire further into the matter. Upset by the inquiry, Kaye rescinded his acceptance.

Around this same time, Alien-Hart sent an e-mail to Kaye and the other full-time reference librarians announcing an upcoming staff meeting and listing several anticipated discussion topics. In addition, she requested each of them provide her with a list of three projects they thought should be a priority for the reference department. The responses were due by the end of the day on February 28.

*53On March 5, Kaye sent Alien-Hart a lengthy response e-mail, which he copied to his coworkers. Rather than discuss project prioritization as Alien-Hart had requested, Kaye opted to discuss the “governance” of the reference department and his perception that the Library’s management regards the full-time reference librarians as “fungible and disposable peons who are not genuinely valued.” Among the reasons for his perception were recent schedule changes implemented by Alien-Hart. He considered the changes to be unwise and personally disadvantageous. Moreover, because he was not given an opportunity to discuss the changes beforehand, he regarded Alien-Hart’s implementation of them as a “hypocritical,” “hand-down-the-law approach” that “smacks of autocracy.”

Another reason for his perception was what he characterized as his involuntary and arbitrary assignment to the Serra Cooperative Library System’s ethnic diversity committee. In his view, the assignment did not suit his skills and interests and, therefore, “represents an administrative determination to deliberately squander law library funds and human resources on a relatively useless outside extravagance.”

However, the chief reason for his perception was the inquiry into his invitation to speak at the AOC conference, which he regarded as humiliating and vindictive. He did not understand why Alien-Hart and Riger questioned the invitation since he was “possibly the only person in California who has any experience teaching appellate classes to pro per litigants” and had “unique experience and insights to contribute” to the conference. Although he acknowledged Alien-Hart and Riger were concerned about a breach of protocol, he suggested their concern “was really a pretext for some other hidden agenda.” He speculated as to several possible ulterior motives, including that Alien-Hart and Riger were looking for a reason to discipline him or harass him into early retirement. Kaye did not explain why Alien-Hart and Riger might have such a motive; however, he accused them of “creating a hostile and insulting work environment for everyone” using methods “calculated to destroy any culture of professionalism in [the Library].” He further characterized the inquiry as a “vindictive, retaliatory, accusatory investigation!]” and their conduct as “disgusting, degrading, and utterly unprofessional.”

Kaye also speculated that Alien-Hart and Riger may have wanted to usurp the invitation for themselves even though he was the only person on the Library’s staff qualified to speak on the particular topic. In tins regard, he opined the inquiry “smacks of petty, spiteful jealousy.” He further warned “[i]t bodes badly for the future of our efforts [to create and conduct classes for self-represented litigants] if people are more concerned about who gets credit than about providing genuinely useful service to the public.”

*54The last possibility Kaye suggested was that Riger feared Kaye’s presence at the conference would interfere with Riger’s plans to lobby court officials rather than actually attend the conference. Kaye questioned whether Riger was “equipped to network and lobby intelligently for our future” at a conference on self-represented litigants. Kaye also questioned whether Riger was eligible to attend the conference as it was for judicial officers and court employees. For this reason and because Riger planned to leave the conference early, Kaye also questioned whether Riger was eligible to have his expenses reimbursed by the AOC. Kaye opined that, if Riger attempted to submit an expense reimbursement application to the AOC, the application would be a false claim under California’s False Claims Act (CFCA) (Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq.). He then suggested an investigation should be conducted to determine “who invited or acquiesced in designating [Riger] to travel to [the conference] at AOC expense as a representative of the San Diego Superior Court.” He further suggested the inquiry into his own invitation was “just a self-righteous tactic to divert attention from that more serious misconduct.” He went on to characterize the inquiry as “small-minded and inexcusable,” and stated, because of it, “the library’s managers have forfeited much of their credibility and goodwill in my eyes.”

He concluded the e-mail by asserting his belief the reference librarians “work under an autocratic command structure and that reference staff meetings do not really serve much purpose.” Therefore, he proclaimed, “Let the managers make their decisions without any pretense of collaboration and hand down their fiats from on high.”

The day after Kaye sent the e-mail, Alien-Hart and Lawrence hand delivered a letter notifying him he was being placed on administrative leave pending an investigation of his e-mail. Approximately two weeks later, Alien-Hart sent him a letter notifying him she was proposing he be discharged for “insubordination and serious misconduct.” The notice was subsequently rescinded and reissued under Riger’s signature.

Cyndy Day-Wilson, an attorney and former member of the Library’s board of trustees (Board), conducted a pretermination administrative hearing. After reviewing the evidence submitted by the parties, Day-Wilson concluded Kaye’s “conduct constituted serious misconduct and justifies termination.” Riger subsequently terminated Kaye effective August 3.

Kaye submitted a “Post-Termination Administrative Appeal” to the Board. A senior deputy with the San Diego County Counsel’s Office then stepped in to assist the Library. The senior deputy wrote Kaye a letter explaining that Kaye’s employment was at will by statute and, therefore, the only review available to Kaye was that provided in the Library’s grievance procedure. *55The senior deputy further explained to Kaye how to invoke the grievance procedure. The senior deputy’s letter did not comment on the merits of Kaye’s discharge. Kaye and the senior deputy exchanged further correspondence about the grievance procedure. The senior deputy also did not comment on the merits of Kaye’s discharge in this correspondence.

Kaye submitted a grievance and argued his position before the Board at an open session on November 29. The senior deputy attended the open session, but did not comment on or respond to Kaye’s arguments. However, Riger commented on and responded to some of Kaye’s arguments.

After Kaye’s arguments, the Board adjourned to closed session to deliberate. The senior deputy attended the closed session with the Board. Riger and the other Library managers who attended the open session did not attend the closed session. The Board did not conclude their deliberations that day.

The Board reconvened in closed session on December 4. The senior deputy attended this closed session as well. The Board voted to discharge Kaye and determined his discharge would be effective that day rather than August 3. The Board also determined Kaye should be paid his full salary through that day. Lawrence sent a letter the next day notifying Kaye of the Board’s decision.

In a subsequent written decision, the Board clarified it was “exercising its own discretion and authority in this matter” and “not merely examining a prior managerial decision for ratification or nullification.” The Board’s decision further indicated the Board was not concerned about the substance of Kaye’s complaints, but the manner in which he chose to raise them. In the Board’s view, the e-mail appeared “intentionally calculated to disrupt the office, undermine the authority of the Director, and impinge upon working relationships within the Library.” The Board further concluded “the email exhibited an inappropriate lack of judgment, professionalism and respect for the chain of command necessary for the effective functioning of the Law Library.”

Kaye filed a combined complaint for wrongful termination and petition for writ of mandate (complaint) against the Board, the Library, Riger, and Alien-Hart.2 The complaint contained six causes of action. The first and second causes of action have been removed to federal court. The third cause of action alleges his discharge violated Business and Professions Code section 6345. The fourth cause of action alleges the Board violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.). The fifth cause of *56action alleges his discharge violated the free speech clause in article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. The sixth cause of action alleges his discharge violated the whistleblower protections in the CFCA.

The trial court granted summary adjudication as to each of these causes of action. Kaye appeals, raising numerous claims of error. We conclude Kaye cannot establish any of these causes of action and affirm the judgment.

II

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal from an order granting summary adjudication we independently determine whether triable issues of material fact exist. In making this determination we view the evidence in a light favorable to the plaintiff. We liberally construe the plaintiff’s evidentiary submission, strictly scrutinize the defendant’s evidentiary submission, and resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768-769 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 23 P.3d 1143]; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 895 [83 Cal.Rptr.3d 146]; Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 565 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 910].)

III

DISCUSSION

A. Kaye cannot establish his discharge violated the state Constitution’s free speech clause

In his fifth cause of action, Kaye contends his e-mail to Alien-Hart was protected speech and, therefore, his discharge violated the state Constitution’s free speech clause. The United States Supreme Court recently addressed an analogous contention under the First Amendment. (Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) 547 U.S. 410, 421 [164 L.Ed.2d 689, 126 S.Ct. 1951] (Garcetti).) In Garcetti, a deputy district attorney claimed his employer retaliated against him for writing a memo questioning the veracity of an affidavit used to support a search warrant and recommending dismissal of the related criminal case. (Id. at pp. 414-415.) Among its defenses, his employer claimed the memo was not protected speech under the First Amendment because the attorney wrote it as part of his employment duties. (547 U.S. at p. 415.) The United States Supreme Court agreed. (Id. at pp. 421-422.)

Relying on its prior decisions in Connick v. Myers (1983) 461 U.S. 138 [75 L.Ed.2d 708, 103 S.Ct. 1684] and Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) *57391 U.S. 563 [20 L.Ed.2d 811, 88 S.Ct. 1731], the court explained the dilemma in public employee free speech cases is balancing the interests of a public employee as a citizen to comment on matters of public concern against the interests of a public employer “ ‘in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.’ [Citation.]” (Garcetti, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 417.) Accordingly, two inquiries “guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. [Citation.] If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to the speech.” (Id. at p. 418.) If the answer is yes, then “[t]he question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.” (Ibid.)

Applying this analytical framework, the Supreme Court noted the deputy district attorney wrote the memo as part of his regular job duties and “spoke as a prosecutor fulfilling a responsibility to advise his supervisor about how best to proceed with a pending case.” (Garcetti, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 421.) The court reasoned, “[restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.” (Id. at pp. 421—422.) Consequently, the court held “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” (Id. at p. 421.)

Kaye concedes his cause of action fails if Garcetti applies to it; however, he contends Garcetti does not apply to violations of the state Constitution’s free speech clause. We conclude there is no merit to this contention.

Under the state Constitution, “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd (a).) “The California free speech clause is broader and more protective than the First Amendment free speech clause. [Citation.] However, the fact that our provision is worded more expansively and has been interpreted as being more protective than the First Amendment in some respects does not mean that it is broader in all its applications. [Citation.] Generally, when we interpret a provision of the California Constitution that is similar to a provision of the federal Constitution, we will not depart from the United States Supreme Court’s construction of the similar federal provision unless we are given cogent *58reasons to do so.” (Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 168, 179 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 727, 56 P.3d 1029].)

Among the reasons potentially supporting a departure from Supreme Court precedent on free speech questions are: “(1) something ‘in the language or history of the California provision suggests that the issue before us should be resolved differently than under the federal Constitution’ [citation]; (2) ‘the high court “hands down a decision which limits rights established by earlier precedent in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of the earlier opinion” ’ [citation]; (3) there are vigorous ‘dissenting opinions [or] incisive academic criticism of those decisions’ [citation]; or (4) following the federal rule would ‘overturn established California doctrine affording greater rights’ [citation].” (Gallo Cattle Co. v. Kawamura (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 948, 959 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 1].) None of these reasons supports a departure from the holding in Garcetti.

Kaye does not identify anything in the language or history of the state Constitution’s free speech clause suggesting Garcetti should not apply. In addition, Garcetti does not, as Kaye suggests, limit rights established by earlier precedents in a manner inconsistent with those precedents. Rather, Garcetti relied upon and applied earlier precedents to address an issue that had never been directly addressed by them—whether the First Amendment protects a public employee’s speech made during the ordinary course of the public employee’s duties.

Although there were dissenting opinions in Garcetti and there has been academic commentary on the decision, dissenting opinions and academic commentary are common occurrences when the Supreme Court decides cases involving important constitutional rights. Consequently, the existence of dissenting opinions and academic commentary is not a sufficient basis by itself for departing from the Supreme Court’s construction, particularly where, as here, the Supreme Court’s rationale is not illogical, unpersuasive, or incompatible with its prior precedents. (Gallo Cattle Co. v. Kawamura, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at pp. 961-964; People v. Teresinski (1982) 30 Cal.3d 822, 836-837 [180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753]; Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252, 267, fn. 17 [172 Cal.Rptr. 866, 625 P.2d 779].)

Finally, following Garcetti would not overturn established California doctrine affording greater rights. California courts have routinely followed Supreme Court precedents in addressing public employee free speech matters. (See, e.g., Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Bd. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 131, 138-149 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 34]; Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 595, 601-614 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d *59268]; Campbell v. State Personnel Bd. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 281, 287-290 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 722]; Gray v. County of Tulare (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1089-1096 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 317]; Chico Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Chico (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 635, 642-652 [283 Cal.Rptr. 610]; Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 322, 336-343 [218 Cal.Rptr. 228].) We have not located any California authorities affording public employees greater protection in this area. Although one appellate court was specifically invited to find greater protection under the California Constitution, it declined the invitation observing, “federal law has been leading the way for California cases involving discipline of employees for free speech activities, and we see no reason to depart from its essential reasonableness.” (Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 342, fn. 8.) For the reasons stated, we agree with this observation and, applying Garcetti, we conclude Kaye cannot establish his discharge violated the state Constitution’s free speech clause.

B. Kaye cannot establish his discharge violated the CFCA’s whistleblower protections

In his sixth cause of action, Kaye contends his discharge violated the CFCA because his discharge was based in part on his suggestion that Riger may not have wanted him to attend the conference to prevent him from discovering Riger might be intending to submit a false claim for reimbursement of conference-related expenses.3 Under the CFCA, an employer may not “discharge ... an employee . . . because of lawful acts done by the employee ... in disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or in furthering a false claims action, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in, an action filed or to be filed under Section 12652 [to enforce the CFCA].” (Gov. Code, § 12653, subd. (b).) This code section, characterized as the whistleblower protection provision of the CFCA, is construed broadly. (Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 713, 724 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 665]; LeVine v. Weis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 201, 210 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 562] (LeVine), disapproved on another ground in Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1196-1197 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 108, 141 P.3d 225].)

There is a dearth of California authority discussing what constitutes protected activity under the CFCA. However, because the CFCA is patterned *60on a similar federal statute (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.), we may rely on cases interpreting the federal statute for guidance in interpreting the CFCA. (City of Pomona v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 793, 801-802 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 710].)

Generally, to constitute protected activity under the CFCA, the employee’s conduct must be in furtherance of a false claims action. (U.S. ex rel. Hopper v. Anton (9th Cir. 1996) 91 F.3d 1261, 1269.) The employee does not have to file a false claims action or show a false claim was actually made; however, the employee must have reasonably based suspicions of a false claim and it must be reasonably possible for the employee’s conduct to lead to a false claims action. (LeVine, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 210; Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Center (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1097, 1103; U.S. ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, supra, 91 F.3d 1261, 1269.) “Saber-rattling is not protected conduct.” (Luckey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (7th Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 730, 733.)

In this case, it is readily apparent from their context that the remarks in Kaye’s e-mail about Riger’s conference attendance were not in furtherance of a false claims action. The undisguised purpose of the e-mail was to complain about the inquiry into Kaye’s speaking invitation not to report or initiate an investigation into a false claim. A disgruntled employee’s expression of dissatisfaction with his treatment on the job is not protected activity under the CFCA. (U.S. ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard University (D.C. Cir. 1998) 332 U.S. App.D.C. 56 [153 F.3d 731, 740].)

Moreover, Kaye’s remarks did not reflect reasonably based suspicions of an imminent false claim. Instead, his remarks were insinuations based on speculation and inaccurate assumptions about the approval and funding for Riger’s conference attendance. It is not reasonably possible for such remarks to lead to a false claims action. As Kaye’s conduct was not protected under the CFCA, we conclude Kaye cannot establish his discharge violated the CFCA.

C. Kaye cannot establish his discharge violated Business and Professions Code section 6345

In his third cause of action, Kaye contends Riger’s decision to discharge him violates Business and Professions Code section 6345. This code section authorizes the Board to “appoint a librarian and define the powers and prescribe the duties of any officers, determine the number, and elect all necessary subordinate officers and assistants, and at its pleasure remove any officer or assistant.” (Italics added.) Since this code section does not expressly authorize the Board to delegate its removal power, Kaye *61contends Riger had no power to discharge him. We need not decide this issue because, even assuming Kaye’s contention is correct, the Board independently determined to discharge Kaye at its December 4 meeting.4 Accordingly, Kaye cannot establish his discharge violated this code section.

D. Kaye cannot establish the Board violated the Brown Act

In his fourth cause of action, Kaye contends the Board violated the Brown Act at its November 29 and December 4 meetings by (1) deliberating on his grievance in closed session, and (2) using the same attorney who advocated on behalf of the Library to advise the Board in closed session. On appeal, Kaye continues to contend the Board violated the Brown Act on November 29 and December 4 by its choice of advisory counsel. However, Kaye no longer contends the Board violated the Brown Act by deliberating in closed session on these dates. Instead, he contends the Board violated the Brown Act at its meeting on March 22 by viewing a copy of Kaye’s e-mail in closed session and at its meeting on June 26 by receiving a supplemental report about Kaye’s conduct in closed session.

As Kaye acknowledged at oral argument below, his contentions regarding the Board’s March 22 and June 26 meetings are not included in his fourth cause of action. Accordingly, we do not consider these contentions in determining whether the trial court properly granted summary adjudication of this cause of action. (Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 98-99, fn. 4 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 820]; Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1253, 1258 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 372].)

Since Kaye is no longer arguing the Board’s closed session deliberations on November 29 and December 4 violated the Brown Act, we turn to his remaining contention that the Board’s choice of advisory counsel did so. The code section Kaye relies upon in his fourth cause of action to support the violation is Government Code section 54957, subdivision (b). This code section permits the Board to meet in closed session “to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a public session.” (Gov. Code, § 54957, subd. (b)(1).)

In addition, this code section provides that, before the Board can meet in closed session on specific complaints or charges brought against an employee, the Board must give the employee at least 24 hours’ written notice of *62the employee’s right to have the complaints or charges heard by the Board in open session rather than in closed session. (Gov. Code, § 54957, subd. (b)(2).) This code section also authorizes the Board to exclude witnesses from the meeting under certain circumstances and clarifies that an “employee” includes certain independent contractors. (Gov. Code, § 54957, subd. (b)(3), (4).)

Nothing in this code section limits whom the Board may choose to advise it when it conducts meetings involving employment matters and Kaye has not cited to any other provision of the Brown Act to support his claim. Therefore, we conclude Kaye cannot establish the Board’s choice of advisory counsel violated the Brown Act.

Kaye’s reliance on our decision in Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 196] (Howitt) is misplaced. Howitt did not involve a Brown Act claim and, consequently, provides no guidance on whether the Board’s choice of advisory counsel violated the Brown Act. Rather, in Howitt, we observed that there are due process concerns when an attorney from one office acts as an advocate for a party and another attorney from the same office acts as an advisor to the decision maker in the same matter. (Howitt, at pp. 1585-1586.) The due process concerns we identified in Howitt are not at issue in this case because Kaye’s employment was at will and because his state law causes of action do not include a due process claim.

Even if we were to consider the Board’s choice of advisory counsel under due process principles, we would conclude Kaye could not state a claim because there is no evidence the senior deputy county counsel who advised the Board ever acted as an advocate adverse to Kaye. The senior deputy’s involvement in the matter occurred when the matter came before the Board as a grievance, after Alien-Hart, Riger, and Day-Wilson determined Kaye should be discharged. The senior deputy’s communications with Kaye addressed procedural issues, not the merits of Kaye’s position. Furthermore, the senior deputy did not represent the Library’s position during the grievance hearing, Riger did. As all of counsel’s actions vis-a-vis Kaye were consistent with those of a legal adviser to the Board rather than an advocate for the Library or its management, Kaye’s due process rights were not violated by the Board’s choice of advisory counsel. (Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543, 568-569 [81 Cal.Rptr.3d 123].)

*63IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their appeal costs.

Huffman, 1, and McDonald, L, concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied December 2, 2009, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 24, 2010, S178930. Baxter, L, did not participate therein.