Just found this:
Puerto Rico
29 P.R. Laws Ann. 63 -- 64h (Controlled Access Law)
Puerto Rico's Controlled Access Law, enacted in 1987, and amended in 1992, was aimed at helping communities control crime. Under the Act, residential neighborhoods could exert some measure of control over vehicular and pedestrian traffic so long as they did not contain certain specified public facilities, or if they did not constitute thoroughfares necessary for travel between one community and another. This was generally achieved by erecting a fence or barrier where an access point used to be, effectively closing it off, and instead leaving one or two operative entrances to the neighborhood, usually manned by a guard. When a non-resident pedestrian or vehicle wished to enter the neighborhood, the guard was reached via intercom. The guard could record such information as could be ascertained by plain sight (time of entry and exit, make and model of the vehicle driven, and the license plate number of the vehicle).The guard could ask the visitor for his intended destination or the purpose of the visit. If the purpose was to see a particular resident, the guard could ask for and record the name of the visitor, but only when the resident had given the authorization to do so. Failure to adequately provide an answer to this inquiry was deemed a sufficient basis for denying the visitor's entry. The records were used to assist the police in investigating crimes committed in the area. Plaintiff's the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York and a local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation claimed, inter alia, that their members, wishing to engage in religious ministry, had been denied entrance into gated communities; had been directed to leave neighborhoods; had been threatened with, and even subject to, criminal charges; and had even been prevented from speaking to individuals on public streets and from engaging in door-to-door ministry in communities where they themselves were residents. After holding that plaintiffs had associational standing to sue on behalf of their members in federal court and had established a cognizable case and controversy, the district court held that the Act did not facially violate the First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion, or the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or the constitutional right to travel and freedom of movement. However, the court refused to dismiss the "as applied" challenges to the Act. To make such a determination prior to discovery would be premature given the underdeveloped nature of the factual record in the case Case # 2034 (D. P.R.)
http://www.paradigmpub.com/docs.asp?id=&pf=1&case=xpuertorico