Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[cobber]

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.

I think the "official business" exception applies to railroad trespass/common carrier. As far as other property is concerned, I don't see an official business exemption. So if no guns are posted, and the officer enters, sounds like he has to arrest himself.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Biggest problem with signs is that if I walk into a business and the sign does not say something like 50% off I am not reading it. I don't care how big it is. I went to their business to get what I wanted, not read a manual. About the only time I ever truly read what is on the door is when the door is locked, then I look for the store hours.

 

[printcraft]

Am I just reading it wrong?

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

(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.

I agree, it is sort of a convoluted mess.

 

[JetGirl]

Yeah, but what about a sign that says not no firearms?

 

[Trigger Time]

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).

Good luck buddy. I'd put your department on the map and cash in my pocket.

 

[cobber]

I agree, it is sort of a convoluted mess.

(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;

Sign alone ain't gonna hack it for criminal charge. Have to be asked to leave and be warned by LE (as an agent of the owner), and then either refuse to leave, or come back after leaving. Civil trespass warning probably won't do it for subsequent criminal charge, without the whole LE warning etc.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Good luck buddy. I'd put your department on the map and cash in my pocket.

Good luck. You'll probably find your pocket lighter, if somebody did make an arrest due to a properly worded sign.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sign alone ain't gonna hack it for criminal charge. Have to be asked to leave and be warned by LE (as an agent of the owner), and then either refuse to leave, or come back after leaving. Civil trespass warning probably won't do it for subsequent criminal charge, without the whole LE warning etc.

Sorry, but a "sign alone," is sufficient. A person doesn't even actively have to be trespassing. I posted a link earlier, that apparently no one has bothered to read. Tell me exactly what you think this ruling means, if it doesn't confirm a sign can have force of law behind it?

Converted file msm

 

[ATM]

Sorry, but a "sign alone," is sufficient. A person doesn't even actively have to be trespassing. I posted a link earlier, that apparently no one has bothered to read. Tell me exactly what you think this ruling means, if it doesn't confirm a sign can have force of law behind it?

Converted file msm

Attempts to invoke and apply the standard of an actual NO TRESPASSING notice to an artfully written prohibition of objects, actions, etc. may or may not be successful.

This case didn't even address such an attempt.

 

[Trigger Time]

Good luck. You'll probably find your pocket lighter, if somebody did make an arrest due to a properly worded sign.

Yeah I'm sure there are dick cops and prosecutors out there that would be happy to take it to court. I'll take my chances.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Attempts to invoke and apply the standard of an actual NO TRESPASSING notice to an artfully written prohibition of objects, actions, etc. may or may not be successful.

This case didn't even address such an attempt.

Yeah, it does apply... As much as many might want it not to, it does. The IC doesn't cite simply "no trespassing" signs, it says "postings." You can say that it doesn't, but at least one court, and a court of appeals, disagrees.

 

[printcraft]

When I go to the courthouse they have no weapons sign on the door, being a prohibited place from the start (.gov) I comply with that sign.

Hey, what if the mall put up a no talking sign?
I know the no funny walks sign would not work since that is subjective but would the no talking sign fly?
Talking is still legal right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

When I go to the courthouse they have no weapons sign on the door, being a prohibited place from the start (.gov) I comply with that sign.

Hey, what if the mall put up a no talking sign?
I know the no funny walks sign would not work since that is subjective but would the no talking sign fly?
Talking is still legal right?

that sign wouldn't work under IC. That could just as easily mean "no eating of toothpicks" as "no talking."

 

[printcraft]

that sign wouldn't work under IC. That could just as easily mean "no eating of toothpicks" as "no talking."

Ok let me try again........

 

[ATM]

Yeah, it does apply... As much as many might want it not to, it does. The IC doesn't cite simply "no trespassing" signs, it says "postings." You can say that it doesn't, but at least one court, and a court of appeals, disagrees.

I'd like to see that case.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'd like to see that case.

Me too. The case cited is private property not open to public with only one sign, that says stay out, not a set of rules that need to be read. Seems completely different than privately owned property that is open to the public.

 

[cobber]

Me too. The case cited is private property not open to public with only one sign, that says stay out, not a set of rules that need to be read. Seems completely different than privately owned property that is open to the public.

Yes. Appellate decisions need to be read carefully. Unless the judges extrapolated to a commercial setting, it is very dangerous to read this case that way.

Also the 'gun' sign states arrest OR forfeiture. If Joe carries his gun onto the property, he can argue that the sign is vague, such that arrest would be an infringement on his constitutional 2d A right.

If the sign were to say persons carrying a gun are subject to arrest, at least they have fair warning.

Another problem is that the definition of weapon is VERY broad, and arrest of gun owners would again give rise to the objection that the sign is vague, since ONLY gun owners are arrested and prosecuted. Banning ALL weapons would require the owners to enforce against pepper spray, kubatons, nail files and Bic pens. All are weapons. (The sign doesn't even specify "deadly" weapons, which would be a little helpful.)

Finally, the case suggests that the property owner was not consulted, and did not testify at trial. Rather a neighbor saw the defendant standing on the gate, and that was sufficient to the jury to convict.

So we're countenancing a situation where an officer, without consulting with the property owner, arrests and charges a person with trespassing, for carrying a weapon onto the property in question. I don't know about the jury in the case cited, but if I were on trial, I would at least hope for six sapient beings to occupy the jury box.

 

[jbombelli]

I'd like to see that case.

I asked him for that before. He won't provide any information that we could use to look it up.

 

[stephen87]

You are required to leave private property if the owner or his representative requests that you do.

If you refuse upon request, it becomes tresspass a misdemeanor.

If you return and are asked to leave and refuse it is criminal tresspass a felony.

If you have not been asked to leave you have not committed a crime.

IMHO the police should never be called unless a crime has been committed or there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot.

If someone calls in a false alarm such as but not limited to MWAG, trespassing when the owner has not asked the person to leave and someone carrying a long gun, it should be criminally prosecutable.

The non criminal should be able to file a civil suit.

Technically, a man carrying a handgun could be RAS for a stop. You cannot carry a handgun, in public, in the state of Indiana, without a LTCH. I believe, if you are stopped for carrying a handgun, it is a good stop.

 

[stephen87]

that sign wouldn't work under IC. That could just as easily mean "no eating of toothpicks" as "no talking."

Now you're just grasping at straws. Maybe the "No Firearms" sign that you see actually means "No Airsoft Guns" or "No Lighters Shaped Like Firearms." See, I can grasp too. We all know what obvious signs mean when we see them, stop twisting and find some relevant case law.