Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[stephen87]

Doug, if it addresses a person directly, it holds weight of law. However, there is the provision in the law that could change it so that it does not need to address a person specifically.


IANAL, but I have read the law in question and these posts are from my understanding and reading of attorneys' opinions.

 

[Slawburger]

No Trespassing Signs: Abel A. Alves v. State of Indiana

Doug,
Regarding your question it appears that a simple "No Trespassing" sign is sufficient. Although the case below was not specifically about the content of the sign it does say that it was a black and yellow “No Trespassing” sign.


Abel A. Alves v. State of Indiana (10/12/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
May, Judge

This case addresses the effect of a “No Trespassing” sign on private property. Abel A. Alves appeals his conviction after a jury trial of trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. See footnote He raises one issue: whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm. On October 12, 2002, Robert Adams saw a green Honda parked off the road beside property located on County Road 650 South in Delaware County, Indiana. Adams knew the owners of the property, William and Kay Whitehead, and did not recognize the Honda. Adams pulled his vehicle off the road facing the Honda. He saw Carol Blakney at the wheel of the Honda, and Alves standing on a gate about 30 to 40 feet from the edge of the road. The gate had a black and yellow “No Trespassing” sign attached to it.

Adams asked Alves and Blakney their names and wrote down their license number. Neither Alves nor Blakney had permission from the Whiteheads to enter their property. * * *

Alves argues the evidence is insufficient to show he knowingly entered the Whiteheads’ property and that he had been denied entry by the posting of a notice at the main entrance of the property.

The Whiteheads’ property at 650 South included a barn or other type of building and a silo set back from the road. A gate and fence separated those structures from the road. The gate was about 30 to 40 feet from the road and had a “No Trespassing” sign attached to it. Adams testified Alves was standing on the gate.

There appears to be no Indiana case law addressing the point on a person’s property at which a “No Trespassing” sign takes effect. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 provides a person may be “denied entry” for trespass purposes by means of “posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.”

While there was no evidence Alves had opened or climbed over the gate and walked past the “No Trespassing” sign, the jury could have reasonably inferred that at least part of his body entered the airspace above the Whiteheads’ property. As a result, there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of trespass. Affirmed.

BAILEY, J., and SHARPNACK, J., concur.
​

 

[stephen87]

I would rep you for that, Slawburger, but I need to spread it around. Thanks for the read, though.

 

[Slawburger]

IC 14-22-10-1 Consent to use private land

I would rep you for that, Slawburger, but I need to spread it around. Thanks for the read, though.

Thanks, I am actually learning a lot from these threads. I also found this (which doesn't apply to the mall unless you are shooting):


IC 14-22-10-1
Consent to use private land
Sec. 1. A person may not:
(1) fish, hunt, trap, or chase;
(2) shoot with any kind of firearm or archery equipment;
(3) search for or gather any plant life (defined as the members of the kingdoms Fungi and Plantae); or
(4) search for or gather any artifacts (as defined in IC 14-21-1-2);
upon privately owned land without having the consent of the owner or tenant of the land.
As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.186-2003, SEC.59.

 

[stephen87]

So I should ask before the next shooting?

 

[Sarge470]

Based on what the OP has been able to tell me, as well as the hats worn by the "officers," I'm pretty confident that the OP was actually approached by private security guards employed by the security contractor for Glenbrook Mall. They wore campaign hats, which are not authorized for wear at any time or as part of any FWPD uniform. ISP doesn't like to pull its troopers off the highways to investigate MWAG calls in town, especially at a large indoor mall where they would have to navigate on foot; as a general rule, they refer those calls to FWPD, which has no record of dispatching any officers regarding an armed subject at Glenbrook that day. It has already been established that no LEOs were working for the mall that day, and I'm pretty certain that JC Penney hires its own private, plainclothes loss-prevention staff (we do a lot of cage runs for them).

 

[KG1]

Based on what the OP has been able to tell me, as well as the hats worn by the "officers," I'm pretty confident that the OP was actually approached by private security guards employed by the security contractor for Glenbrook Mall. They wore campaign hats, which are not authorized for wear at any time or as part of any FWPD uniform. ISP doesn't like to pull its troopers off the highways to investigate MWAG calls in town, especially at a large indoor mall where they would have to navigate on foot; as a general rule, they refer those calls to FWPD, which has no record of dispatching any officers regarding an armed subject at Glenbrook that day. It has already been established that no LEOs were working for the mall that day, and I'm pretty certain that JC Penney hires its own private, plainclothes loss-prevention staff (we do a lot of cage runs for them).

Makes sense. Thanks for the extra effort. Many of us appreciate the input regarding inside knowlege from LE personnel such as yourself.

 

[sloughfoot]

Based on what the OP has been able to tell me, as well as the hats worn by the "officers," I'm pretty confident that the OP was actually approached by private security guards employed by the security contractor for Glenbrook Mall. They wore campaign hats, which are not authorized for wear at any time or as part of any FWPD uniform. ISP doesn't like to pull its troopers off the highways to investigate MWAG calls in town, especially at a large indoor mall where they would have to navigate on foot; as a general rule, they refer those calls to FWPD, which has no record of dispatching any officers regarding an armed subject at Glenbrook that day. It has already been established that no LEOs were working for the mall that day, and I'm pretty certain that JC Penney hires its own private, plainclothes loss-prevention staff (we do a lot of cage runs for them).

Well there it is. Thanks LT. I don't understand why people cannot tell the difference. Although, a white uniform shirt used to be authorized for Class A for Command. Hey, that's you..... I wore one for a TV interview once.

BTW, you remember when either Chief Moore or Hannaford was trying out the blue campaign hats for general issue? I think the PBA actually shut it down. The complaint was that the hat would be constantly going on and off the head, compromising OS when getting out of the squad. A valid complaint I think. Too bad it could not be OK for some areas, just not Patrol.

Anyway, I have one. it would look good on you. Maybe the new Chief would like it....? You are welcome to borrow it to wear into the office.

 

[jbombelli]

Well there it is. Thanks LT. I don't understand why people cannot tell the difference. Although, a white uniform shirt used to be authorized for Class A for Command. Hey, that's you..... I wore one for a TV interview once.

BTW, you remember when either Chief Moore or Hannaford was trying out the blue campaign hats for general issue? I think the PBA actually shut it down. The complaint was that the hat would be constantly going on and off the head, compromising OS when getting out of the squad. A valid complaint I think. Too bad it could not be OK for some areas, just not Patrol.

Anyway, I have one. it would look good on you. Maybe the new Chief would like it....? You are welcome to borrow it to wear into the office.

What does Hannah Ford have to do with this?

[video=youtube;WvdiJYGf2JU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvdiJYGf2JU[/video]

 

[sloughfoot]

What does Hannah Ford have to do with this?

[video=youtube;WvdiJYGf2JU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvdiJYGf2JU[/video]

I can't watch youtube on my computer. Its too old. You slamming Chief of Police Hannaford? Probably not, just have to ask....

 

[Sarge470]

Nah, he's making a joke about a pop star, whose name very closely resembles the former Chief (at least phonetically). As far as the campaign hat trial, I participated in it under Chief Moore. Dumping the trial was one of the first things Dan did when he took charge. They looked sharp, but weren't practical in all situations. I never see the new boss since I went back to C-Shift about 6 weeks ago. As far as the white shirt goes, I haven't even bought one yet and it's been over two years since I got the bars. Uniform policy these days is kinda hard to pin down, so I'm not inclined to spend the money on one just to find out it's not authorized for lieutenants any more.

 

[jbombelli]

I can't watch youtube on my computer. Its too old. You slamming Chief of Police Hannaford? Probably not, just have to ask....

Lol. No. I posted a video of a female drummer named Hannah Ford playing a drum solo. She's an excellent drummer. Last I read she was playing with prince.

 

[aaron580]

The stupid of the OP cop…..it burns….

 

[sloughfoot]

Lol. No. I posted a video of a female drummer named Hannah Ford playing a drum solo. She's an excellent drummer. Last I read she was playing with prince.

COOL. My sister and her daughter spend a lot of time hanging out at Paisley Park with Prince and that bunch. I figured it was probably something like that in the video.

I need a new computer.

 

[sloughfoot]

Nah, he's making a joke about a pop star, whose name very closely resembles the former Chief (at least phonetically). As far as the campaign hat trial, I participated in it under Chief Moore. Dumping the trial was one of the first things Dan did when he took charge. They looked sharp, but weren't practical in all situations. I never see the new boss since I went back to C-Shift about 6 weeks ago. As far as the white shirt goes, I haven't even bought one yet and it's been over two years since I got the bars. Uniform policy these days is kinda hard to pin down, so I'm not inclined to spend the money on one just to find out it's not authorized for lieutenants any more.

LOL. You can never go wrong with blue. My other hero, LT Jerry M., stayed on C shift I am pretty sure so he never had to deal with the upper floors. Nothing like C shift for a LT is there, LT? LOL

Is this thread hijacked, or what? Guilty as charged, I guess.

 

[Denny347]

The stupid of the OP cop…..it burns….

Not a cop...mall security.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Just walked through whole mall essentially OCing behind an open jacket. Narry a word, but I did see someone who must work for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 

[David D]

Just walked through whole mall essentially OCing behind an open jacket. Narry a word, but I did see someone who must work for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Oh no! It's started. The Canadians have launched their invasion starting in Indiana.

 

[Sarge470]

Oh no! It's started. The Canadians have launched their invasion starting in Indiana.

I knew it! The "polar vortex" was just a meteorological substitute for the artillery that usually precedes an offensive! Well played, Canada...well played...

 

[gjclark]

Sarge informed me that based on the information shared in a PM between him and me that it was most likely a mall cop that approached me. Not the real deal.