Hospital carry?

[bwframe]

It the mods didnt give wrist slaps, there'd be more tumbleweeds than posters.
(I'd still be her though)

Actually there would be a whole lot more posters. You'd be shocked how many regular and new posters have gone by the wayside, loosing their taste for dealing with those who treat INGO like their own little anonymous interweb game.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Actually there would be a whole lot more posters. You'd be shocked how many regular and new posters have gone by the wayside, loosing their taste for dealing with those who treat INGO like their own little anonymous interweb game.

No kidding.

Happy belated solstice day Nordic Heathen, wherever you are!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You are correct, and I don't think I am doing a good job of using my words Fail at English today for me. In using the OP's topic (this is a hospital thread afterall), you have a contractual interest to be at a hospital if you are paying for their services. Now I don't think the OP stated anything to this effect, and simply stated he was going to a hospital to visit. I'm just trying to sort this out in a general sense. If you, as a gun carrier, enter a business with whom you already have a contractual interest with, and that business has a correctly worded GUNS=TRESPASSING sign, and they see you have a handgun, are you in violation of a law?

Ok, if you are paying for a service or not is completely 100% irrelevant. It matters as much as what color your socks are. Having a contractual interest to be at the hospital is irrelevant to trespass. What matters is having a contractual interest in the property. Paying for a service or not paying for a service is irrelevant in determining if you have a contractual interest in the property. Paying rent gives you a contractual interest in a property. Buying medical care does not.

If the following fits, you are trespassing. If the following doesn't fit, you are not trespassing.

IC 35-43-2-2 Version a
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.203-2013, SEC.25. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.462, effective 7-1-2014.
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;
.....
(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 vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property or an abandoned structure (as defined in IC 36-7-36-1); or
...
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. ...

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section 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
...

 

[actaeon277]

Ok, if you are paying for a service or not is completely 100% irrelevant. It matters as much as what color your socks are. Having a contractual interest to be at the hospital is irrelevant to trespass. What matters is having a contractual interest in the property. Paying for a service or not paying for a service is irrelevant in determining if you have a contractual interest in the property. Paying rent gives you a contractual interest in a property. Buying medical care does not.

If the following fits, you are trespassing. If the following doesn't fit, you are not trespassing.

IC 35-43-2-2 Version a
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.203-2013, SEC.25. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.462, effective 7-1-2014.
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;
.....
(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 vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property or an abandoned structure (as defined in IC 36-7-36-1); or
...
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. ...

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section 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
...

Thanks. Those were very useful. Now I have to save them someplace that I can remember them in the future.

 

[Bill B]

Only rarely do good things happen beyond the third page of any thread.
BehindBlueI's is correct. There was a case where a person was convicted of trespassing at a bank, even though the had an account there. The court said that they did not have a contractual interest in the property, therefore the conviction stood. I forget the case, but it was discussed at some length on INGO.

 

[Davis0023]

I know for a fact at IU/Methodist and Riley, you can't carry on there property unless its part of your lawful duty i.e LEO "on duty status". Not the 24/7 rule, the are you on the clock rule. This is clearly posted at the doors.
As for non-LEO, act reasonable and present your self well and 9 out of 10 times, they will secure your weapon in lock boxes in the security office. The security 9 of 10 officers are very pro gun, several are on INGO, I won't say who, but they are. Several of them are also LEO or former/ retired LEO.
If you are caught at the door i.e. metal detector, the officers( IMPD/MCSD) will try and send you to your car, just ask for a IU Health Officer ( see above). If "caught/seen" in the buildings or property carrying, you can expect an assertive response.

 

[bwframe]

I know for a fact at IU/Methodist and Riley, you can't carry on there property unless its part of your lawful duty i.e LEO "on duty status". Not the 24/7 rule, the are you on the clock rule. This is clearly posted at the doors.
As for non-LEO, act reasonable and present your self well and 9 out of 10 times, they will secure your weapon in lock boxes in the security office. The security 9 of 10 officers are very pro gun, several are on INGO, I won't say who, but they are. Several of them are also LEO or former/ retired LEO.
If you are caught at the door i.e. metal detector, the officers( IMPD/MCSD) will try and send you to your car, just ask for a IU Health Officer ( see above). If "caught/seen" in the buildings or property carrying, you can expect an assertive response.

They all have metal detectors?

 

[Davis0023]

No, Methodist ER does during certain hours.

 

[bwframe]

No, Methodist ER does during certain hours.

Ah, sounds like maybe the most likely time that you'd need to be armed visiting the ER, right?

 

[Bill B]

I know for a fact at IU/Methodist and Riley, you can't carry on there property unless its part of your lawful duty i.e LEO "on duty status". Not the 24/7 rule, the are you on the clock rule. This is clearly posted at the doors.
As for non-LEO, act reasonable and present your self well and 9 out of 10 times, they will secure your weapon in lock boxes in the security office. The security 9 of 10 officers are very pro gun, several are on INGO, I won't say who, but they are. Several of them are also LEO or former/ retired LEO.
If you are caught at the door i.e. metal detector, the officers( IMPD/MCSD) will try and send you to your car, just ask for a IU Health Officer ( see above). If "caught/seen" in the buildings or property carrying, you can expect an assertive response.

I'm not trying to be a Richard, but can you clarify "you can't carry..." Do you mean it's against their policy? In this thread, ambiguity is the enemy.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm not trying to be a Richard, but can you clarify "you can't carry..." Do you mean it's against their policy? In this thread, ambiguity is the enemy.

Good question sir.

 

[Dirtebiker]

No kidding.

Happy belated solstice day Nordic Heathen, wherever you are!

I'm not trying to be a Richard, but can you clarify "you can't carry..." Do you mean it's against their policy? In this thread, ambiguity is the enemy.

Yes, too many use the word "can't" when they mean "aren't allowed".

 

[bwframe]

Yes, too many use the word "can't" when they mean "aren't allowed".

Exactly. Big difference between "We'll have to ask you to leave," and "Please put your hands on the wall, now put one wrist behind you..."

 

[SteveM4A1]

Ok, if you are paying for a service or not is completely 100% irrelevant. It matters as much as what color your socks are. Having a contractual interest to be at the hospital is irrelevant to trespass. What matters is having a contractual interest in the property. Paying for a service or not paying for a service is irrelevant in determining if you have a contractual interest in the property. Paying rent gives you a contractual interest in a property. Buying medical care does not.

If the following fits, you are trespassing. If the following doesn't fit, you are not trespassing.

IC 35-43-2-2 Version a
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.203-2013, SEC.25. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.462, effective 7-1-2014.
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;
.....
(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 vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property or an abandoned structure (as defined in IC 36-7-36-1); or
...
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. ...

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section 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
...

Thank you for clearing that up for me. In regards to a sign, how hard is it to prove one knowingly or intentionally does what the sign says not to do? I know it has been stated they carry the weight of law, but nobody had been convicted for ignoring a sign only. Maybe the knowingly and intentionally is hard to prove without someone actually telling them to leave or not come on the property?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. In regards to a sign, how hard is it to prove one knowingly or intentionally does what the sign says not to do? I know it has been stated they carry the weight of law, but nobody had been convicted for ignoring a sign only. Maybe the knowingly and intentionally is hard to prove without someone actually telling them to leave or not come on the property?

Here's the issue, with the "no weight of law," and signage. If a person is walking down the street, and carrying a gun, an officer cannont compel a person to identify themselves, or detain them further than checking their LTCH (which IMO is still "iffy,"). Now, if a person walks into a place that has very visible signs, at the entrance, that simply say "No Firearms Allowed," most would say that such a sign carries no weight of law. I think to a small degree that is incorrect. If a business owner doesn't have the courage to confront the offender, and calls the police citing a disregard of the signage, what do you think a LEO response would be? I think it's a fair bet, that the person would be compelled to identify themselves, as well as disarmed, before being sent on their way. In this, I'm fairly confident there would be no legal remedy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

In regards to a sign, how hard is it to prove one knowingly or intentionally does what the sign says not to do?

I don't know. I never locked anyone up for ignoring a "no trespassing" sign for that exact reason. Proving they saw it seems like a difficult burden, and I'm not aware of any law that codifies what "you should have seen it" would entail. For example, a handicap parking stall must have the sign displayed at a certain height to be enforceable. Its considered "you should have" even if you didn't see it. However that's just a civil infraction, not a criminal matter.

I would not want to be the test case on either side of it. As an LEO, I'd take a report if the property owner wanted to push it, let them trespass you verbally at that point, and let the prosecutor make the decision as long as you complied with the verbal order. As a potential trespasser, I'd not ignore a "no trespass" sign.

I also think its uncharted territory to have a "variable" on a trespass sign. A "you are trespassing if you bring a firearm on the property" seems like it would be beyond the scope of the IC code. That said, I'm not a judge and am certainly not willing to be the test case on that side of it either.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Here's the issue, with the "no weight of law," and signage. If a person is walking down the street, and carrying a gun, an officer cannont compel a person to identify themselves, or detain them further than checking their LTCH (which IMO is still "iffy,"). Now, if a person walks into a place that has very visible signs, at the entrance, that simply say "No Firearms Allowed," most would say that such a sign carries no weight of law. I think to a small degree that is incorrect. If a business owner doesn't have the courage to confront the offender, and calls the police citing a disregard of the signage, what do you think a LEO response would be? I think it's a fair bet, that the person would be compelled to identify themselves, as well as disarmed, before being sent on their way. In this, I'm fairly confident there would be no legal remedy.

I think the issue with the simple "No Firearms" signs are that they refer to an object and not a person. The Texas 30.06 sign refers specifically to a permit holder carrying a gun, which makes more sense to me. Something similar in Indiana would seem to have weight of law.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I don't know. I never locked anyone up for ignoring a "no trespassing" sign for that exact reason. Proving they saw it seems like a difficult burden, and I'm not aware of any law that codifies what "you should have seen it" would entail. For example, a handicap parking stall must have the sign displayed at a certain height to be enforceable. Its considered "you should have" even if you didn't see it. However that's just a civil infraction, not a criminal matter.

I would not want to be the test case on either side of it. As an LEO, I'd take a report if the property owner wanted to push it, let them trespass you verbally at that point, and let the prosecutor make the decision as long as you complied with the verbal order. As a potential trespasser, I'd not ignore a "no trespass" sign.

I also think its uncharted territory to have a "variable" on a trespass sign. A "you are trespassing if you bring a firearm on the property" seems like it would be beyond the scope of the IC code. That said, I'm not a judge and am certainly not willing to be the test case on that side of it either.

I definitely don't want to be that test case either, that's why I am asking.

 

[SteveM4A1]

And in regards to the "contractual interest", I was and still somewhat am confused because I had read this:

Rucker, J., dissenting with separate opinion. [which reads in part] I agree with the majority that “[t]he term ‘contractual interest in the property’ is not defined by the criminal trespass statute or elsewhere in the Indiana Code.” However, our Court of Appeals has declared that the term “‘contractual interest,’ as it is used in the criminal trespass statute, refers to the right to be present on another’s property, arising out of an agreement between at least two parties that creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.”

So the Court of Appeals has one definition, which I tend to agree with.

 

[bwframe]

...I think it's a fair bet, that the person would be compelled to identify themselves, as well as disarmed, before being sent on their way...

Why disarmed?