"No outside food or drink"

[stephen87]

Will you get arrested if you post "no hunting" all around your property, someone ignores it, and hunts your land anyways?

Why would I be arrested for them breaking my "no hunt" order?

In spite of the sign, taking outside food or drink into a theater is NOT a crime in Indiana. So you should not be arrested if you do it as that is not trespassing per Indiana law. The law on trespass is here:

Indiana Code 35-43-2

Since you presumably purchased a ticket you are there lawfully in spite of carrying in food or drink. But say someone takes exception to your having outside food like your M&M's. Since it's private property they can request that you leave since you did not follow their rules and that is their option and depending on their stated or published policy they may or may not offer to refund your ticket. If you leave, peacefully, there is no crime committed and you, again, should not be arrested. If you make a scene, then you may cross a (granted fuzzy) line into criminal trespass and may be subject to arrest. Of course that doesn't mean you're guilty of trespass, just that you were arrested and possibly charged. The court, should it get that far, will sort that out.

In most cases unless you're giving them some OTHER reason to kick you out, I've never seen a theater enforce these policies, but I'm sure there are some a-hole theater employees who think they're some sort of emperor and would do so.

So, if I buy a ticket, do I have a contractual interest in the property? Some argue that if you go to a restaurant and order your food, you now have a contractual interest in the business.

Great analogy thread. Here is the major problem with any such sign carrying the weight of law:

No outside food or drink allow (that is the law they are creating). Violators will be treated as trespassers (that is the charge they are creating for such action).

They don't have the power to create such law, even on their own property, that says no outside food or drink allowed. Because they have no such power they also have no such power to apply a legal penalty to such invalid law. The only recourse they have is their right, under Indiana law, to force you to vacate the property.

That is why even a sign like this for guns: "Absolutely no guns, knifes, or weapons allowed. Violators will be treated as trespassers" holds no weight of law. The law does not give them a right to define what is or is not trespassing. Either they tell you specifically you can not enter or they don't.

Again, you're not ****ing understanding. Take your head out of your ass, clean the **** out of your eyes, and read what I am writing. By posting "no outside food or drinks" you are NOT making a law. You are making a rule/policy. If you post that violators of this rule are trespassing (yes, this is the correct word since trespass is defined as committing an offense against a person or a set of rules) it could open them up to arrest for violation of IC 35-43-2-2. It states that a person may be denied entry by posting at the front entrance that is prescribed by law (law does not state what it must say) OR will be likely to come to the attention of the public. As long as it states that there is a penalty, you could be arrested. Since there is no case law, this is all speculation on my part and other's as well. I will continue to believe this until the time you post something showing that a judge supports what you say.


The law ABSOLUTELY gives them the right to define trespassing on their property. They set the rules, after all. Otherwise, they could never kick you out because they are "creating a law" that says you are not allowed.

 

[stephen87]

Well it's entirely true. You are subject to immediate arrest and prosecution but the food & drink has nothing to do with that. Posting a ridiculous statement doesn't make it accurate. In order to be arrested a law enforcement officer would have to have probable cause to believe that you have committed an arrest-able offence. Either that or he has a warrant for your arrest. But carrying outside food or drink into a movie theater is not a crime, in Indiana at least, so there would be no probable cause.

Au contraire (see, Frenchy, I know France too), IC 35-43-2-2, which you posted earlier, states that a person CAN be denied entry by signage that is likely to come to the attention of the public. By stating that you are denied entry and subject to arrest, a case could be made that you are trespassing.

Then I think a reasonable person could believe that drinks AND food is perfectly fine. Or one drink. Or multiple foods. Yes, foods.

Besides which, I never learned to read.

What if it said "Food and/or drinks"?

 

[KG1]

I'll just wait for it to come out on home video and eat all the damn M&M's I want.

 

[SteveM4A1]

So, if I buy a ticket, do I have a contractual interest in the property? Some argue that if you go to a restaurant and order your food, you now have a contractual interest in the business.

Too bad the courts can't decide. The Indiana Court of Appeals has one definition of contractual interest, and the Indiana Supreme Court has a different one.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I'll just wait for it to come out on home video and eat all the damn M&M's I want.

Sure, that's right...first they came for the snickers, I did nothing. Then they came for gummi bears, I did nothing.
when they came for me and my M and M's.....

 

[stephen87]

Too bad the courts can't decide. The Indiana Court of Appeals has one definition of contractual interest, and the Indiana Supreme Court has a different one.

Right?

 

[TheSpark]

Again, you're not ****ing understanding. Take your head out of your ass, clean the **** out of your eyes, and read what I am writing. By posting "no outside food or drinks" you are NOT making a law. You are making a rule/policy. If you post that violators of this rule are trespassing (yes, this is the correct word since trespass is defined as committing an offense against a person or a set of rules) it could open them up to arrest for violation of IC 35-43-2-2. It states that a person may be denied entry by posting at the front entrance that is prescribed by law (law does not state what it must say) OR will be likely to come to the attention of the public. As long as it states that there is a penalty, you could be arrested. Since there is no case law, this is all speculation on my part and other's as well. I will continue to believe this until the time you post something showing that a judge supports what you say.


The law ABSOLUTELY gives them the right to define trespassing on their property. They set the rules, after all. Otherwise, they could never kick you out because they are "creating a law" that says you are not allowed.

I understand what you are saying. You are dead wrong, but I understand. Oh, and lets not go off and start swearing over this.

Show me the Indiana Code that allows someone to define tresspassing on their property? IC 35-43-2-2 only gives them the right to state no trespassing in a clear and obvious way. The law absolutely does NOT give them the right to define trespassing on their property. The law, as it should, defines that. You either deny THE PERSON or you don't.

Also, I almost choked to death laughing when I read "As long as it states that there is a penalty, you could be arrested." I'm not even going to bother addressing that since it is so absurd everyone knows that can't be more than a joke.

"By posting "no outside food or drinks" you are NOT making a law. You are making a rule/policy." Exactly. That is the point I was making really, it is a private policy not a law. Therefore, no such legal consequences can occur. That should be obvious to everyone.

As for your post in the other thread about a lawyer agreeing with your side.... Everyday thousands of lawyers argue two different points in court and one always loses. So I don't give one care what some random attorney falsely believes to be true.

 

[stephen87]

I understand what you are saying. You are dead wrong, but I understand. Oh, and lets not go off and start swearing over this.

Show me the Indiana Code that allows someone to define tresspassing on their property? IC 35-43-2-2 only gives them the right to state no trespassing in a clear and obvious way. The law absolutely does NOT give them the right to define trespassing on their property. The law, as it should, defines that. You either deny THE PERSON or you don't.

Also, I almost choked to death laughing when I read "As long as it states that there is a penalty, you could be arrested." I'm not even going to bother addressing that since it is so absurd everyone knows that can't be more than a joke.

"By posting "no outside food or drinks" you are NOT making a law. You are making a rule/policy." Exactly. That is the point I was making really, it is a private policy not a law. Therefore, no such legal consequences can occur. That should be obvious to everyone.

As for your post in the other thread about a lawyer agreeing with your side.... Everyday thousands of lawyers argue two different points in court and one always loses. So I don't give one care what some random attorney falsely believes to be true.

Maybe you should read the most recent posts in that thread. You stated earlier that even "No Trespassing" signs held "0 weight of law." IN CoA disagrees with you. I now have case law to back mine. Your move.

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.
​

 

[TheSpark]

Nothing I hate more than someone putting words in my mouth. I have said many times that a blanket "no trespassing" sign is more than sufficient as long as it is posted as the law says it has to be.

Here a direct quote by me from 2 days ago:

There is only one sign in Indiana that covers this and that is a blanket: "No Trespassing" sign.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...corted-out-glenbrook-mall-24.html#post4819445

----------

"No trespassing" addresses your person. The law starts off with the exact words of "a person".

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...corted-out-glenbrook-mall-27.html#post4822481

 

[stephen87]

Nothing I hate more than someone putting words in my mouth. I have said many times that a blanket "no trespassing" sign is more than sufficient as long as it is posted as the law says it has to be.

I apologize. I've been reading these two thread so much that I combined two posts.


However, you're saying that a person cannot be trespassed by a sign based on a policy, correct?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Until there is an actual case everyone can both be wrong and right, it really is that simple. you're welcome.

 

[stephen87]

Until there is an actual case everyone can both be wrong and right, it really is that simple. you're welcome.

You shut your mouth, rab*****ild.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Until there is an actual case everyone can both be wrong and right, it really is that simple. you're welcome.

You're wrong. Prove it.

 

[TheSpark]

I apologize. I've been reading these two thread so much that I combined two posts.


However, you're saying that a person cannot be trespassed by a sign based on a policy, correct?

That's okay. I just wanted to make it clear that I never claimed that.

Yes, because you can not address inanimate objects with this law. They do not qualify as "a person". When a person reads such a sign they can ignore anything that does not address their person specifically. Even though they may or may not be carrying a gun, have shoes on or not, have a dog with them, have food in their pocket ... doesn't matter. The law only allows the addressing of the person, not the objects on or around them (and arguably in them too).

 

[stephen87]

So what if the sign states "Persons with outside food and/or drinks are denied entry. All violators are trespassing and will be subject to arrest."?

 

[TheSpark]

So what if the sign states "Persons with outside food and/or drinks are denied entry. All violators are trespassing and will be subject to arrest."?

Wouldn't matter. That sign would hold 0 weight of law because it goes outside the bounds of what is permitted by Indiana Trespassing law via a sign. It attempts to address more than the person.

 

[stephen87]

Agree to disagree. Until there is case law on this, we won't see eye to eye.

I disagree that by stating a specific standard a person must meet, it is void.

 

[TheSpark]

Until there is an actual case everyone can both be wrong and right, it really is that simple. you're welcome.

Technically you are right. No law is certain until the courts have ruled on it. There is to my knowledge no case law on this. I know the reason is simple (because I'm right) and prosecutors wont bother bringing a charge they can't win.

Lets face it, many police officers would LOVE to arrest someone on a charge like this. In fact, I'm willing to bet many have been arrested only to be released and never charged. Many police officers hate the fact that citizens can have and carry guns too.

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying all cops hate the public being armed. The truth is many do and many will take every chance to make the life hell of someone they run across who legally has a gun.

 

[stephen87]

Maybe prosecutors never pursue it because it's winnable, but an uphill battle to win? Maybe there are too many variables, such as was the sign visible, was it worded properly, did they use the entrance it was posted at, etc?

 

[TheSpark]

Maybe prosecutors never pursue it because it's winnable, but an uphill battle to win? Maybe there are too many variables, such as was the sign visible, was it worded properly, did they use the entrance it was posted at, etc?

Hard to say. I can't even find news articles for someone being arrested for ignoring a sign that says no guns. I'm still confident it has happened in Indiana at least a handful of times though. It would be nice, for us, to have this tested in court. I'm not volunteering to be the test case though even though I'm confident on my stance.

Like I said earlier, possibly in the other thread. When it comes to the law the letter is suppose to win over the intent. That is why we have many laws that make things illegal or legal which was never intended but the law was written poorly and actually says something else. You have to go over a law word by word. If at any point a single word, phrase, or whatnot contradicts you it is game over. That is what lawyers, especially defense lawyers, do. They look for that one little section that nullifies the other sides argument.

In this case "a person" is surely what they would latch on to and it would become the core of the arguments in the case.... Well, if they couldn't get it dismissed based on the other technical things like placement etc. first. They'll always try the easiest avenues first.