Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[Kutnupe14]

I understand the code, but how can you argue against the exact wording of the code. Where is sign located? What does it say? How big is it? What do you consider "non contractual agreement? The list goes on. Clarity, man. Clarity!

The sign was located at the main entrance (which is the only entrance), and it is located in a place that is likely to come to the attention of the public. I humor you and say that the door IS the actual sign. the door is 10 feet tall, 4 feet wide. It is painted white and the text of the sign is written in 3 inch black lettering. To the left of the door is a button that a person must press to gain entry. One a person is inside, he immediately encounters a greeter who asks, " did you read the sign on the 10ft tall, 4ft wide white entrance door?" If the person says yes, they are allowed to pass.

The person entering the door has no stake in the property, and this is the first time he's been in the city, and seen the store.

That work?

 

[stephen87]

Humoring you, if you were "greeted" by this person saying "have you read the door," you acknowledge that you read it, but by no means have you agreed to any terms.


Here is the IC again, I'll highlight and hit some main points in it. Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer so this is your average Joe interpreting it.

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.


The person must be denied entry by the owner or an agent of the business. A sign is not a prohibition, not is it a person. It is simply a rule, which is not law. A prohibition would be "Persons carrying a firearm are prohibited from entering these premises." It must definitively address the prohibition.

The person must have been asked to leave, by the owner or agent of the property. They must then refuse to be trespassed.

Personal communication would mean they personally communicated with you. If I post a sign, it is not a personal communication it is a public communication for everyone.

IC states "in a manner prescribed by law," what IC would cover this particular manner? TN, TX, OH, etc, all state what the sign must say in order for it to be a legal prohibition. As far as I know, there is nothing in the IC that states what signs must say, but the IC states "in a manner prescribed by law." Obviously, there WAS something that is no longer there.

Or likely to come to the attention of the public. Do you think that a sign, which is 4 feet tall by 2 feet wide, with 10 font, inside a door with 4 other posters around it, not clearly marked stating, basically, "these are the rules" is likely to come to the public's attention? I don't.

In your case, YES it is likely to come to the public's attention, but NOT it is not a prohibition on my entry. It only states your wishes that I be unarmed on your property. Unless it specifically bars me from the premises, it doesn't hold weight of law.

 

[ryknoll3]

Humoring you, if you were "greeted" by this person saying "have you read the door," you acknowledge that you read it, but by no means have you agreed to any terms.


Here is the IC again, I'll highlight and hit some main points in it. Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer so this is your average Joe interpreting it.

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.


The person must be denied entry by the owner or an agent of the business. A sign is not a prohibition, not is it a person. It is simply a rule, which is not law. A prohibition would be "Persons carrying a firearm are prohibited from entering these premises." It must definitively address the prohibition.

The person must have been asked to leave, by the owner or agent of the property. They must then refuse to be trespassed.

Personal communication would mean they personally communicated with you. If I post a sign, it is not a personal communication it is a public communication for everyone.

IC states "in a manner prescribed by law," what IC would cover this particular manner? TN, TX, OH, etc, all state what the sign must say in order for it to be a legal prohibition. As far as I know, there is nothing in the IC that states what signs must say, but the IC states "in a manner prescribed by law." Obviously, there WAS something that is no longer there.

Or likely to come to the attention of the public. Do you think that a sign, which is 4 feet tall by 2 feet wide, with 10 font, inside a door with 4 other posters around it, not clearly marked stating, basically, "these are the rules" is likely to come to the public's attention? I don't.

In your case, YES it is likely to come to the public's attention, but NOT it is not a prohibition on my entry. It only states your wishes that I be unarmed on your property. Unless it specifically bars me from the premises, it doesn't hold weight of law.

A sign can absolutely deny you entry. You're reading the statute wrong. It says that you are guilty if you knowingly or intentionally enter the property after being denied entry.

It goes on to say that denial of entry can be accomplished by either oral or written personal communication, a sign proscribed by law or conspicuous and likely to come to the attention of the public or a court order.

IF a sign was at the main entrance, conspicuous and likely to come to the attention of the public, it serves as a denial of entry. If the sign clearly spelled out that you were not to enter with a firearm or weapon and that you would be considered to be trespassing if you did so, I don't know how you'd get around it, except that you have to KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY enter.

For example, Portillo's restaurants in the Chicago area and northwest Indiana are notoriously anti-gun. They had a sign at their Merrillville location that said that firearms were prohibited, that those who entered with firearms would be considered trespassers and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To me, that would meet the definition of a proper trespassing sign. The problem was, it was off on a side-pane of a revolving door entrance, was posted amongst a bunch of other material, and it was not very conspicuous. Unless you were looking to read all of the signage on the door, you wouldn't know it was there. This, therefore would NOT meet the definition under the law.

 

[ryknoll3]

Also, in the OP's case, I believe the cop would have to have probable cause that the OP intentionally entered after being denied to arrest him. Since there's only ONE code of conduct sign, even if it met the standard of being conspicuous and likely to come to the attention of the public, the cop would basically have to have seen him come through THAT door to make an arrest, unless management asked the cop to remove the OP.

Outside a request from management, I don't understand why a cop would be getting involved in this on his own....

 

[CathyInBlue]

Does any of this support the argument of trespassing?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10091201lmb.pdf

I thought I might have read this case before, and I had, and I thought it had been overturned by the ISC, so I looked it up. Transfer was denied 1/3/13, with Justices David and Rush wanting to grant transfer, so the appeals decision stands.

 

[Bunnykid68]

A sign can absolutely deny you entry. You're reading the statute wrong. It says that you are guilty if you knowingly or intentionally enter the property after being denied entry.
.

But how does a sign deny one entry if you do not read all of it? If you want me to agree to anything written you need me to sign off on it or have someone at the entrance verifying this like they do at the courthouse with their metal detectors and and armed officers.

after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent. Reads to me like someone, like a human must first deny me entrance before I can be trespassed

 

[CathyInBlue]

The person must be denied entry by the owner or an agent of the business. A sign is not a prohibition, not is it a person. It is simply a rule, which is not law. A prohibition would be "Persons carrying a firearm are prohibited from entering these premises." It must definitively address the prohibition.

Or likely to come to the attention of the public. Do you think that a sign, which is 4 feet tall by 2 feet wide, with 10 font, inside a door with 4 other posters around it, not clearly marked stating, basically, "these are the rules" is likely to come to the public's attention? I don't.

The green part contradicts the red part. You don't have to be denied entry by a person (owner/agent). You can be denied entry by a sign. The only issues at controversy here are the particulars of that sign. Where? Size? Colors? Iconographic/verbal content? If there was a sign on the front of your favourite store, eclipsing all other ensignia on the doors, which clearly read "stephen87 from INGO is not permitted on the permises", and you walked in anyway, unless you are blind, a reasonable jury could (and prolly would) convict you for criminal trespass, as the sign would have clearly denied you entry with particularity.

I say Kutnupe14's question of whether a sign plus your actions would be enough to sustain a criminal trespass charge can be answered in the affirmative. The issue is, as mentioned, all of the particulars of the sign.

There's also the question of how the officer just walking up and arresting you for violating the above sign would know that you are stephen87 from INGO. While the sign itself is sufficient, there would also be questions of how the officer knew to arrest you, if the owner/agent did not act in some fashion to connect the dots for him. The only other way for those dots to be connected without actions on the owner/agent's part would be if there was a sworn officer on site whose sole task was to accost absolutely every patron for ID to confirm that they are not stephen87 from INGO (or some other legal identity listed on such a sign), such that an excluded individual could be discovered committing criminal trespass without owner/agent action, or the excluded person is a celebrity/well known, such that the officer already has a clear association of name on the sign on the door and the appearance of the person to recognize them in the store itself. This, of course, is reaching into the lands of fantasy and farce.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The green part contradicts the red part. You don't have to be denied entry by a person (owner/agent). You can be denied entry by a sign. The only issues at controversy here are the particulars of that sign. Where? Size? Colors? Iconographic/verbal content? If there was a sign on the front of your favourite store, eclipsing all other ensignia on the doors, which clearly read "stephen87 from INGO is not permitted on the permises", and you walked in anyway, unless you are blind, a reasonable jury could (and prolly would) convict you for criminal trespass, as the sign would have clearly denied you entry with particularity.

I say Kutnupe14's question of whether a sign plus your actions would be enough to sustain a criminal trespass charge can be answered in the affirmative. The issue is, as mentioned, all of the particulars of the sign.

There's also the question of how the officer just walking up and arresting you for violating the above sign would know that you are stephen87 from INGO. While the sign itself is sufficient, there would also be questions of how the officer knew to arrest you, if the owner/agent did not act in some fashion to connect the dots for him. The only other way for those dots to be connected without actions on the owner/agent's part would be if there was a sworn officer on site whose sole task was to accost absolutely every patron for ID to confirm that they are not stephen87 from INGO (or some other legal identity listed on such a sign), such that an excluded individual could be discovered committing criminal trespass without owner/agent action, or the excluded person is a celebrity/well known, such that the officer already has a clear association of name on the sign on the door and the appearance of the person to recognize them in the store itself. This, of course, is reaching into the lands of fantasy and farce.

And he could always just say "No, I'm not Stephen87, I am Bunnykid68, Stephen is an ass"

 

[Timjoebillybob]

But how does a sign deny one entry if you do not read all of it? If you want me to agree to anything written you need me to sign off on it or have someone at the entrance verifying this like they do at the courthouse with their metal detectors and and armed officers.

after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent. Reads to me like someone, like a human must first deny me entrance before I can be trespassed

The sign denies you entry whether you read it or not. If the person was telling you to leave and you stuck your fingers in your ears and went nananananana I can't hear you, would that make it legal to stay?

The person denied you entrance by posting the sign. Same as if the person walked up and said to leave or not to come in.

There have been multiple threads on this and at least one of the attorneys stated that in their opinion, a properly worded sign conspicuously posted would meet the regulations and by entering a person would be committing criminal trespass. My google fu is weak and I can't find them but iirc it was Kirk and possibly Guy.

 

[stephen87]

The green part contradicts the red part. You don't have to be denied entry by a person (owner/agent). You can be denied entry by a sign. The only issues at controversy here are the particulars of that sign. Where? Size? Colors? Iconographic/verbal content? If there was a sign on the front of your favourite store, eclipsing all other ensignia on the doors, which clearly read "stephen87 from INGO is not permitted on the permises", and you walked in anyway, unless you are blind, a reasonable jury could (and prolly would) convict you for criminal trespass, as the sign would have clearly denied you entry with particularity.

I say Kutnupe14's question of whether a sign plus your actions would be enough to sustain a criminal trespass charge can be answered in the affirmative. The issue is, as mentioned, all of the particulars of the sign.

There's also the question of how the officer just walking up and arresting you for violating the above sign would know that you are stephen87 from INGO. While the sign itself is sufficient, there would also be questions of how the officer knew to arrest you, if the owner/agent did not act in some fashion to connect the dots for him. The only other way for those dots to be connected without actions on the owner/agent's part would be if there was a sworn officer on site whose sole task was to accost absolutely every patron for ID to confirm that they are not stephen87 from INGO (or some other legal identity listed on such a sign), such that an excluded individual could be discovered committing criminal trespass without owner/agent action, or the excluded person is a celebrity/well known, such that the officer already has a clear association of name on the sign on the door and the appearance of the person to recognize them in the store itself. This, of course, is reaching into the lands of fantasy and farce.

How is it contradictory? One states that the sign must address the prohibition, like you stated. The other states what I feel, since there is no case law nor is there anything in IC stating what the sign must say to be backed by law and what exactly is "conspicuous or likely to come to the public's attention."

The law doesn't prescribe signage, but states that the sign must adhere to rules prescribed by law.

The sign denies you entry whether you read it or not. If the person was telling you to leave and you stuck your fingers in your ears and went nananananana I can't hear you, would that make it legal to stay?

The person denied you entrance by posting the sign. Same as if the person walked up and said to leave or not to come in.

There have been multiple threads on this and at least one of the attorneys stated that in their opinion, a properly worded sign conspicuously posted would meet the regulations and by entering a person would be committing criminal trespass. My google fu is weak and I can't find them but iirc it was Kirk and possibly Guy.

Again, a sign that says "no firearms" is as much a denial entry as "no talking" is. I believe, and until we have case law it is my opinion, the sign must state something along the lines of "all persons carrying a firearm/talking/having blonde hair/etc, are hereby prohibited from entering this facility and will be considered trespassing." It must clearly state the prohibition and the consequences.

 

[cobber]

Actually, I did exactly that.

And the PA told you to arrest someone, based on signage alone, without any request from the merchant?




For those of you parsing the statute, remember that sections (6) through (8) have specific applications to certain venues, such as railroads and condemned properties. Words mean what they say, but you have to read ALL of them first.

(1) through (5) are going to be tricky to apply based on a sign. An oral or written communication is going to refer to just that, notice to that person that they are persona non grata, and are not to return. As to a business excluding a portion of the public, that is not the same kettle of fish as a "no trespassing" sign posted on private property where the public is NOT invited to come.

It is questionable that a condition buried on a sign is "likely to come to the attention of the public" required under (b). And doesn't this sign apply to the parking lot as well? Once a patron becomes aware of the sign, aren't they still in violation when they lock the firearm in their vehicle? Sounds like once you cross the magical property line, you're a misdemeanant.

Again, this is very different from the 2004 case, where the sign simply stated "no trespassing".

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Again, a sign that says "no firearms" is as much a denial entry as "no talking" is. I believe, and until we have case law it is my opinion, the sign must state something along the lines of "all persons carrying a firearm/talking/having blonde hair/etc, are hereby prohibited from entering this facility and will be considered trespassing." It must clearly state the prohibition and the consequences.

I didn't say a simple no firearms is as a denial, if you read farther down I said properly worded. Although I disagree that it would have to list the consequences. A "no firearms allowed, anyone carrying a firearm is prohibited (or denied) entry" would work. The person is denied entry.

 

[Hammerhead]

A sign which reads "No Trespassing" is sufficient enough to meet the requirements of the IC, as it is a specific denial of entry. However, there must also be a definition of what is and is not considered trespassing.

"Hey, buddy, your house is on fire!"
"Hey, I have a delivery for you."
"Hi, your mailbox just got creamed."
"Hi, I'm lost. Can you point me towards [insert location]?"

These are just a few examples of potential reasons to ignore a "no trespassing" sign. "No Trespassing" is subjective to the specific desires of the property owner, and the posting of a vague sign doesn't always cut it.

A "No Firearms" sign does not hold the same minimal weight in the law as it is a request or policy, and has no minimal definition in the IC and is not a denial of entry. Even if posted "conspicuously" at the "main entrance" it still holds as much weight as a "no red shirts" or "no ground beef" sign. I would even argue that a "No [insert object here]" sign would be vague enough to mean that they do not have any available.

The key point in the case of the OP and any other location with a sign that conveys a request/wish/company policy/desire/opinion is the specific denial of entry. The sign in the mall meets no such burden and therefore cannot be enforced as such. For the OP to be removed there must be something more, i.e. a request from an agent of the property, and not just the statement of the local Barney Fife. If the officer in question has no such request and is acting solely on the premise that the sign is enough, he is enforcing his opinion not the law.

I would also argue that the one sign at the one entrance that has one sentence (which has been proven to be a double negative) is not posted conspicuously enough such as is required by the IC. One sentence on a sign on the other side of the mall does not come to the attention of the public. The argument made repeatedly is that the mere existence of such constitutes enough reason to escort a person from the property. Just because it is there, doesn't make it enforceable.

Now Chuck E Cheeses has a sign just inside their doors, posted so that it cannot be missed that states that one should not have a firearm or you will be trespassing. This sign would be enforceable, however it does not make exception for anyone. The LEO brought in to enforce the sign must either a) disarm or b)be subject to the same circumstance and not be permitted entry. I believe this paradox would be enough to make the sign unenforceable.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And the PA told you to arrest someone, based on signage alone, without any request from the merchant?




For those of you parsing the statute, remember that sections (6) through (8) have specific applications to certain venues, such as railroads and condemned properties. Words mean what they say, but you have to read ALL of them first.

(1) through (5) are going to be tricky to apply based on a sign. An oral or written communication is going to refer to just that, notice to that person that they are persona non grata, and are not to return. As to a business excluding a portion of the public, that is not the same kettle of fish as a "no trespassing" sign posted on private property where the public is NOT invited to come.

It is questionable that a condition buried on a sign is "likely to come to the attention of the public" required under (b). And doesn't this sign apply to the parking lot as well? Once a patron becomes aware of the sign, aren't they still in violation when they lock the firearm in their vehicle? Sounds like once you cross the magical property line, you're a misdemeanant.

Again, this is very different from the 2004 case, where the sign simply stated "no trespassing".

A prosecutor can tell me plenty of things I can arrest for. However, the final determination as to whether I do, or don't, rests with me.
You're trying to make a difference in the application of code, based on whether the private property is open to the public or not. I assume you know that it makes no difference between the two. The standard remains the same for a violation, regardless of what "type" of property it is. You're putting things in the code that simply aren't there. If a sign can be denial of private, personal, property, then unless there's a "secret hidden subsection," it can also apply to private property open to the public.

 

[stephen87]

I didn't say a simple no firearms is as a denial, if you read farther down I said properly worded. Although I disagree that it would have to list the consequences. A "no firearms allowed, anyone carrying a firearm is prohibited (or denied) entry" would work. The person is denied entry.

I apologize, I missed that part. HOWEVER, if you believe a person has to verbally tell you that you are trespassing, then the sign must also state that you are trespassing. Again, just my opinion and interpretation.

Here's my thinking on this.

You are at the mall. A manager comes to you and says "Hey, I don't like you. You need to leave." You state that you won't leave. The police are called. They show up and... Where do we go from here? From my time doing security, the officer walks up and says "You have two options. Leave or be arrested for trespassing." Is this an officer's discretion or do they have to give you the option to leave and state that you are being trespassed? Maybe I am wrong on this. If so, officers please make it known. This is the understanding that I got from my supervisors who were LE and ran the company.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I apologize, I missed that part. HOWEVER, if you believe a person has to verbally tell you that you are trespassing, then the sign must also state that you are trespassing. Again, just my opinion and interpretation.

Here's my thinking on this.

You are at the mall. A manager comes to you and says "Hey, I don't like you. You need to leave." You state that you won't leave. The police are called. They show up and... Where do we go from here? From my time doing security, the officer walks up and says "You have two options. Leave or be arrested for trespassing." Is this an officer's discretion or do they have to give you the option to leave and state that you are being trespassed? Maybe I am wrong on this. If so, officers please make it known. This is the understanding that I got from my supervisors who were LE and ran the company.

If you refuse to leave, after being asked, the officer doesn't need to be there for that person to have reached the PC for arrest when he arrives. The officer can arrive, put you in cuffs, and take you away (of course, if it's proven, you declined to leave when asked). Now in practice, officers don't want to make such an arrest outright. If the person is willing to leave upon there arrival, the vast majority of people won't be taken to tge pokey.

 

[stephen87]

So they don't have to tell you your options?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So they don't have to tell you your options?

Nope, a person exhausted their "options" when they refused to leave after the property owner/agent asked them to leave.

 

[cobber]

A prosecutor can tell me plenty of things I can arrest for. However, the final determination as to whether I do, or don't, rests with me.
You're trying to make a difference in the application of code, based on whether the private property is open to the public or not. I assume you know that it makes no difference between the two. The standard remains the same for a violation, regardless of what "type" of property it is. You're putting things in the code that simply aren't there. If a sign can be denial of private, personal, property, then unless there's a "secret hidden subsection," it can also apply to private property open to the public.

If a prosecutor tells you not to make X arrest, you might take that advice to heart. But it's a free country.

No, the standard is not the same. If I put a no trespassing sign on my private property and you walk on in, you're trespassing. And don't bring Officer Chompy with you, either. If I put a no weapons sign on my place of business, you can enter as long as you comport with the license granted by my signage. The malls do NOT have a no trespassing sign in place. They have a notice not to bring X, Y or Z onto their property.

Normally businesses invite the public in. So you come on, with a license.

Normally the walk to my front door is open to persons having legitimate business, so you approach my house with that license. But if I post a sign, according to you, with fine print "All welcome. Except police officers NOT responding to a 911 call, who are subject to arrest and forfeiture of all weapons" then you have to self-arrest upon walking onto my property and forfeit your weapons. Right? Same logic as the mall sign.

Because, as you state, a restrictive license is effective against all who should have read the sign, and coming onto my property would be construed as accepting the terms of that license. Meaning, officer, you have just committed Class A Misdemeanor Trespassing. Your weapon please.

 

[JetGirl]

Nope, a person exhausted their "options" when they refused to leave after the property owner/agent asked them to leave.

And what of the person that's hassled even though he entered an unmarked door vs a door that says...
no guns not allowed?