Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[KG1]

As I said before. Most signs that simply state "No Firearms Allowed" do not in and of themselves meet the criteria of trespassing. It has to specifically state the obvious reference that they will be regarded as trespassers.

 

[Trigger Time]

As with no trespassing signs on my own property, even If it's on the damn gate they walk through, there's no way to prove in court they saw the sign. Signs hold no weight of law. They ask you to leave and you comply and there not dick they can do beyond that unless you refuse to leave

 

[2A_Tom]

THIS SIGN IS ABSOLUTE BS

There is no code that gives a private entity authority to confiscate anything that belongs to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As with no trespassing signs on my own property, even If it's on the damn gate they walk through, there's no way to prove in court they saw the sign. Signs hold no weight of law. They ask you to leave and you comply and there not dick they can do beyond that unless you refuse to leave

So even "no trespassing" signs don't carry force, now?

 

[public servant]

While I've never seen a sign such as that displayed...

Please read the orange part then the red.

(IC 35-43-2-2 Version b
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.462, effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section amended by P.L.203-2013, SEC.25.
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;

---

(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subsection (a)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) 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; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection

(a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4; P.L.158-2013, SEC.462.


Am I just reading it wrong?

 

[Kutnupe14]

And another thing..... What the hell makes "no firearms" signs so special where you think they have the weight of law?

What if the mall put up a sign that said "NO FUNNY WALKS PERMITTED ON THIS PREMISES!"

And I walked in "funnily" Do I get arrested? These two signs have PRECISELY the same legal standing.

None. FUNNY WALKS ARE NOT ILLEGAL. If it is not spelled out in a ratified law IT IS NOT LAW.

"Funny" walks are in the eye of the beholder, firearms are not. You'd be better served, by say something like "No Hamburgers."


Here's the gist of it. If you own a piece of property, you make the rules. If you post signage that is obvious to anyone who enters your property of your wishes, you have effectively posted a denial of entry to all those who are "unacceptable" on your property. You don't have to tell every single person you don't want them there, if the signage, is again posted in so obvious a fashion, that only blind people have a legitimate excuse for not seeing it. If a person sees that sign, or a jury is convince a person would've seen that sign, based on the way it posted, and STILL enters the property, then the person who enters the property has committed the crime of trespassing. You got to jump through a lot of hoops for it to apply in Indiana, but the IC exists explaining that YES signs do hold weight of law.... IF they comply to Indiana Code as written.

 

[Kutnupe14]

While I've never seen a sign such as that displayed...

Please read the orange part then the red.

(IC 35-43-2-2 Version b
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.462, effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section amended by P.L.203-2013, SEC.25.
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;

---

(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subsection (a)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) 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; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection

(a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4; P.L.158-2013, SEC.462.

Am I just reading it wrong?

No, lol, people just don't want to accept that IC provides a provision for signs.

 

[88GT]

I tried to find something, anything that the officer was correct about...

I was unsuccessful.

Well, it is a de facto privilege of sorts. Having to ask permission and all that. Maybe that's what he meant.

 

[Trigger Time]

So even "no trespassing" signs don't carry force, now?

Not with a lawyer who's worth a **** they don't. I don't like it but now days it seems like the criminal has the upper hand. As far as no gun signs go, they can kiss my ass. I'll carry where and when I want. I conceal. If I'm asked to leave because they somehow see it then I'll leave.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not with a lawyer who's worth a **** they don't. I don't like it but now days it seems like the criminal has the upper hand. As far as no gun signs go, they can kiss my ass. I'll carry where and when I want. I conceal. If I'm asked to leave because they somehow see it then I'll leave.

He better be worth a lot more than ****, unless when you used "****" you mean "gold"

Converted file msm

 

[CathyInBlue]

The issue is when do we accept that a sign "denie entry" to a "person" and when do we claim that a sign has not "denied entry" to a "person". "No firearms" does not mean, to me, "no persons permitted to enter if they are carrying firearms for self-defense in abeyance of the law". In order for a property owner to post a sign that actually meets the requirements of IC 35-43-2-2(b)(2), it must mention exclusion of persons, not of inanimate objects.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The issue is when do we accept that a sign "denie entry" to a "person" and when do we claim that a sign has not "denied entry" to a "person". "No firearms" does not mean, to me, "no persons permitted to enter if they are carrying firearms for self-defense in abeyance of the law". In order for a property owner to post a sign that actually meets the requirements of IC 35-43-2-2(b)(2), it must mention exclusion of persons, not of inanimate objects.

I agree, simply saying "no firearms," doesn't fit the bill.

Now, If I posted a conspicuous sign that said:
Per Indiana Code IC 35-43-2-2(b)(2), this sign is a denial of entrance of all persons carrying a firearm, of any type, on these premises, and the disregard of this posting constitutes trespassing.

That's clear isn't it? Incredibly wordy, but the point is made. And even if someone is found to be in violation, most coppers still wouldn't arrest if the person is willing to leave. But if the owner makes a stink (after all, he paid some good money for such a sign), then we'd probably have to arrest (maybe not in custody, but a summons tho).

 

[sloughfoot]

I just checked with one of our guys who works out at Glenbrook, and he advises me that there are no police officers scheduled there on Thursdays. They do employ about 4 officers from multiple departments on a part-time basis on other days of the week, but none on Thursdays. If the officer in question was wearing a white uniform shirt, he is one of the mall's private security guards, since none of the police personnel there wear white in any capacity. For the OP, PM me and I'll try to get the situation clarified.

I am reposting this because this FWPD LT is serious about trying to help and clarify. Its been a while since he was a Sarge 470. But he will find out if you let him.

 

[Somemedic]

I agree, simply saying "no firearms," doesn't fit the bill.

Now, If I posted a conspicuous sign that said:
Per Indiana Code IC 35-43-2-2(b)(2), this sign is a denial of entrance of all persons carrying a firearm, of any type, on these premises, and the disregard of this posting constitutes trespassing.

That's clear isn't it? Incredibly wordy, but the point is made. And even if someone is found to be in violation, most coppers still wouldn't arrest if the person is willing to leave. But if the owner makes a stink (after all, he paid some good money for such a sign), then we'd probably have to arrest (maybe not in custody, but a summons tho).

Which portion applies? Nothing I saw...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Which portion applies? Nothing I saw...

Like I said, being blind is a defense.

 

[cobber]

I agree, simply saying "no firearms," doesn't fit the bill.

Now, If I posted a conspicuous sign that said:
Per Indiana Code IC 35-43-2-2(b)(2), this sign is a denial of entrance of all persons carrying a firearm, of any type, on these premises, and the disregard of this posting constitutes trespassing.

That's clear isn't it? Incredibly wordy, but the point is made. And even if someone is found to be in violation, most coppers still wouldn't arrest if the person is willing to leave. But if the owner makes a stink (after all, he paid some good money for such a sign), then we'd probably have to arrest (maybe not in custody, but a summons tho).

All persons? Including LE? Then I guess the ossifer would have to arrest himself first.

And forfeit his departmentally-issued weapon to mall management (if stipulated in the sign).

Or is said LEO going to raise the defense of being vision-challenged. Hmm.

 

[KG1]

All persons? Including LE? Then I guess the ossifer would have to arrest himself first.

And forfeit his departmentally-issued weapon to mall management (if stipulated in the sign).

Or is said LEO going to raise the defense of being vision-challenged. Hmm.

I was going to bring this up as well when I read through the IC posted by PS. It appears that LE are only exempt if they are performing an official duty.

 

[ryknoll3]

Do LEO have the authority to enforce a "proper" no firearms sign, like one that specifically prohibits entry by those carrying firearms and puts them on trespass notice, absent a request of management?

Example: You're in the mall. Walked past an obvious, proper sign. Cop walks in mall. Sees your firearm. Automatic grounds for arrest, without the request of management?

 

[cobber]

I was going to bring this up as well when I read through the IC posted by PS. It appears that LE are only exempt if they are performing an official duty.

Actually management can ban all guns including LE. And the ossifer would have to comply, or be trespassing...

 

[KG1]

Do LEO have the authority to enforce a "proper" no firearms sign, like one that specifically prohibits entry by those carrying firearms and puts them on trespass notice, absent a request of management?

Example: You're in the mall. Walked past an obvious, proper sign. Cop walks in mall. Sees your firearm. Automatic grounds for arrest, without the request of management?

I think some Leos might point out that a "properly" worded sign does constitute a request from management. Now if the cop walking into the mall is not already doing so on official business then he could also be subject to trespassing.