Hasseled at MicroCenter fo OC

My router bit the bullet Saturday afternoon.
So after supper the boys (collage age) and myself made an emergency run for a replacement.
Now I have kept an eye out for signs there as they used to have them. But for about two months there has been nothing on the doors in the area where they used to be.
I saw the renta cop with his brown uniform. In fact I walked right past him.

Once inside my sons headed off in a different direction and I headed straight for the routers. Once in the asile I decided I needed to get a salesman. There were just too many choices and normally a salesman has some insight on sale price and quality. Not this time. It took about 10 minutes for me to settle. on box A. Then I had to round up the boys. Once corraled I asked them to compair the specs on box A vs Box B since I was not wearing my reading specs. This took another 5 minutes.

The off to the check out. No line, right to the register.
That's when one bullet Barney reared his head.
He says "sir next time you will have to leave your gun outside." "If i had seen it before I would have asked you to leave."
I said "There are no signs on the doors becaused I looked.".
He "Well guns are not allowed in here and I'm going to ask you to leave as soon as you check out."
Me " You don't havethe athority only the manager has that athority to do that."
he "Yes I do."

Now the cashier was very professional and nice the entire time as I was to him.
Once outside my boys said 'Trying to cause scene dad?"

rant over
Your thoughts?

I do not know if Ohio has a law saying that the manager is the only one allowed to ask you to leave, but when I worked for loss prevention with a national retailer (in KY), I could make that request. There were a few that thought they knew "the law" but kept moving. A couple got to take a ride in a police cruiser. My point is only that it is not the time to argue while in the store (and possibly trespassing at that point). Put the merchandise down, go home and make some phone calls. If the "rent a cop" was incorrect, be sure they know his actions lost them revenue. If he was correct, make sure they know their actions lost them revenue.

Indicating your city in your profile (or the location of the MicroCenter) would help others to comment on the specific store.

In Ohio anyone can ask you to leave that is employed by the store. The ORC doesn't say it has to be someone of authority. Now, someone higher up can override the lower person but can you get that person to be there when police arrive? If not and you still refuse, that's trespassing. Here's trespass....

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

I would have said "Fine, I'll leave right now" and left the the router at check out and walked out, and I have done that at a restaurant when told to put my gun back in the truck, my food had just arrived, told the manager I would just put myself back in the truck too. Left the food on the table, walked out and did not pay.

JediSkipdogg said:

In Ohio anyone can ask you to leave that is employed by the store. The ORC doesn't say it has to be someone of authority. Now, someone higher up can override the lower person but can you get that person to be there when police arrive? If not and you still refuse, that's trespassing. Here's trespass....

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

Click to expand...

You're wrong again.

Businesses open to the public means you are a business invitee and have the privilege to be there shopping. That has to be revoked in some way, by a sign, by the owner or occupant, or by an agent or servant. Who, how where and when will determine what part of R.C. §2911.21 you will be charged under, among other things.

R.C. §2911.21(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

Click to expand...

A violation of §2911.21(A)(1) does not even mention an agent or servant of the owner or occupant.

There is a paucity of cases dealing with criminal trespass in businesses under this section. Three such cases are: State v. Lyons, 18 Ohio St.3d 204, 206, 480 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio 1985) (trespass occurred because of failing to pay fee, i.e. no privilege); State v. Rhines, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 071020 OHCA2, 23486, 2010-Ohio-3117, ¶28-29 (defendant committed disorderly conduct and menacing at Walmart); and State v. Hooper, 5th Dist. Delaware, No. 13CAC010006, 2013-Ohio-4898, ¶24 (the owner of the business did not testify that defendant did not have privilege to enter the premises).

These cases indicate that in order for a person to lack privilege to be charged under §2911.21(A)(1) a person had 1.) to fail to meet a prerequisite before entering the property, i.e. paying a fee; 2.) commit some crime on the property; and 3.) the owner had to deny the privilege.

And none of those cases mention the word “agent” or “representative.”

R.C. §2911.21(A)(4) does mention an agent or servant unlike (A)(1). However, (A)(4) also requires that the trespasser negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified to leave.

Even the Ohio Jury Instructions revised August 15, 2012 states as follows:
The defendant is charged with criminal trespass. Before you can find the defendant guilty, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the_________ day of ____________, _________, and in ________________ County (other jurisdiction), Ohio, the defendant, without privilege to do so,
(A)(1) knowingly (entered) (remained) on the land or premises of (insert name of owner or occupant).

Also the person asking you to leave has to ask you to leave in front of a police officer and then if you don't you can be arrested.Pursuant to R.C. §2935.03(A)(1) an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor requires the crime to have been committed in the presence of a police officer. In other words, just because you were asked to leave, you must be asked in front of the police officer and then refuse.

Contacting management and determine their policies, then possibly shopping elsewhere is usually a good idea.

color of law said:

Also the person asking you to leave has to ask you to leave in front of a police officer and then if you don't you can be arrested.Pursuant to R.C. §2935.03(A)(1) an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor requires the crime to have been committed in the presence of a police officer. In other words, just because you were asked to leave, you must be asked in front of the police officer and then refuse.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be in the presence of a police officer? Do you really think getting a warrant is hard for a violation? Business says you weren't allowed on the property. They get your license plate. Officer completes a photo lineup and business picks you out. Business swears out an affidavit that they asked you to leave. Officer fills out a complaint. Warrant issued for your arrest. Pretty simple and can all be done in less than an hour.

JediSkipdogg said:

Why does it have to be in the presence of a police officer? Do you really think getting a warrant is hard for a violation? Business says you weren't allowed on the property. They get your license plate. Officer completes a photo lineup and business picks you out. Business swears out an affidavit that they asked you to leave. Officer fills out a complaint. Warrant issued for your arrest. Pretty simple and can all be done in less than an hour.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio there are only two ways in which a person can be arrested without a warrant. R.C. §2935.03(A)(1) provides that,

“A … municipal police officer … shall arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating, within the political subdivision … in which the peace officer is appointed, employed, or elected, a law of this state, an ordinance of a municipal corporation, or a resolution of a township.”

Click to expand...

It is well settled law that §2935.03 clearly allows a peace officer to arrest a person found violating a state law without a warrant. Only when the offense is committed in his presence, with an exception in drunk driving cases, which does not apply here. See State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 11 MA 60, 2012-Ohio-1301, ¶12; State v. Todd, 2nd Dist. No. C.A. 23921, 2011-Ohio-1740, ¶38 (“The basic rule is that, to be lawful, a warrantless misdemeanor arrest must be for a misdemeanor committed in the presence of the officer.); Feliciano v. Kreiger, 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71-72, 362 N.E2d 646 (Ohio, 1977) (“The language 'found violating' has been interpreted to mean that an officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only when committed in his presence.”); and quoting from 5 Ohio Jur.2d 33 and 34, Section 21, Arrest, the court in City of Columbus, v. Holmes, 107 Ohio App. 391, 397-398 152 N.E.2d 301 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1958) stated,

“No person except an officer has a right to make an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant. An officer can arrest a person for the commission of a misdemeanor or violation of a city ordinance without a warrant only if he sees the person commit the misdemeanor or violate the ordinance. Thus an arrest without a warrant, after the completion of a minor offense not committed in the presence of the officer, is illegal. If an officer is absent when a misdemeanor is committed, and all the information he has of the offense is from statements of bystanders who witnessed it, he has no authority to pursue and arrest the person charged with the offense, without first obtaining a warrant.”(Emphasis added.)

Click to expand...

But, if a police officer does arrest a person without a warrant he must comply with Ohio Criminal Rules of Procedure, Rule 4(E)(d)(2) and file a complaint describing the offense.

The second way for a warrantless arrest to be made is when an arrest is made for a felony. R.C. §2935.04 provides, “When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.” Since trespass is a misdemeanor of the 4th. degree and is not a felony a warrantless arrest under R.C. §2935.04 is not applicable.

Your little scenario you presented won't fly. I suggest you read R.C. 2935.09 and State v. Mbodji, 2011-Ohio-2880.


My question is when are you going to stop your foolishness? I know I'm asking a lot, but when?

samkent said:

rant over
Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

F350 said:

I would have said "Fine, I'll leave right now" and left the the router at check out and walked out, and I have done that at a restaurant when told to put my gun back in the truck, my food had just arrived, told the manager I would just put myself back in the truck too. Left the food on the table, walked out and did not pay.

Click to expand...

This ^ ^ I'd have asked to speak to a manager right then, before making the purchase and if he backed up the cashier told him you would not be making a purchase and simply left. That and phoning head office. And posting the incident publicly on social networks. Never Patronise business that don't care about your safety and ban firearms. It's tantamount to agreeing with the policy.

color of law said:

My question is when are you going to stop your foolishness? I know I'm asking a lot, but when?

Click to expand...

So you write an entire post that mentions arrest without a warrant to contradict my post that stated getting a warrant is easy. Not sure what your post at all has to do with mine. I say get a warrant for the offense. It's easy to do.

Why do you keep quoting arrest without a warrant when I mention dealing with a warrant or dealing with it in the presence of an officer? NOWHERE did I say an officer should arrest someone not present then go to their house and arrest without a warrant?

I have two posts you attempted to contradict yet you backed up my posts exactly.

Scenario 1) Officer responds and the trespasser is still present when management told him to leave. Officer tells him to leave and he doesn't immediately leave. Arrest is allowed as it's in the presence of an officer with an employee present to state the subject is not welcome there.

Scenario 2) Subject has left but business wants to pursue charges or officer has prior knowledge subject has been told to not return. He can issue a warrant once identification is made.

What is wrong with either of those two scenarios? Both of your posts seem to back up both scenarios, so not sure how "I'm wrong" or posting "foolishness."

color of law said:

There is a paucity of cases dealing with criminal trespass in businesses under this section. Three such cases are: State v. Lyons, 18 Ohio St.3d 204, 206, 480 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio 1985) (trespass occurred because of failing to pay fee, i.e. no privilege); State v. Rhines, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 071020 OHCA2, 23486, 2010-Ohio-3117, ¶28-29 (defendant committed disorderly conduct and menacing at Walmart); and State v. Hooper, 5th Dist. Delaware, No. 13CAC010006, 2013-Ohio-4898, ¶24 (the owner of the business did not testify that defendant did not have privilege to enter the premises).

These cases indicate that in order for a person to lack privilege to be charged under §2911.21(A)(1) a person had 1.) to fail to meet a prerequisite before entering the property, i.e. paying a fee; 2.) commit some crime on the property; and 3.) the owner had to deny the privilege.

And none of those cases mention the word “agent” or “representative.”

Click to expand...

Regarding a conviction under R.C. 2911.21(A)(1):

"[Defendant] argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the state failed to produce the actual owner of the property as a witness. He argues that '[t]he state without representation of the owner does not have the right to arrest, charge, and convict someone that the owner of the private property may have granted permission.' This argument is incorrect.

"*** [T]respass is an invasion of the possessory interest in the property, not an invasion of title. ***

"Thus, the state was not required to present the testimony of the actual owner. It had to prove that [defendant] had no privilege to be on the property." State v. Janson, 183 Ohio App.3d 377, 379-380, 2009-Ohio-3256, ¶11-13.

Just to clear up a couple points.
MicroCenter in Cincinnati.

The person who hasseled me was clearly a renta cop.
Not a direct employee of MicroCenter. Likely a subcontractor.
The incident occured Sat evening about 8PM.

Now yesterday I was 'required' by my employer to stop there again to pick up a hard drive.
The exact same brown uniformed renta cop was there walking around.
He did not notice me. But I was dressed differently. (a bit more professional with no gun)

No gun...no money.

Werz said:

Regarding a conviction under R.C. 2911.21(A)(1):

"[Defendant] argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the state failed to produce the actual owner of the property as a witness. He argues that '[t]he state without representation of the owner does not have the right to arrest, charge, and convict someone that the owner of the private property may have granted permission.' This argument is incorrect.

"*** [T]respass is an invasion of the possessory interest in the property, not an invasion of title. ***

"Thus, the state was not required to present the testimony of the actual owner. It had to prove that [defendant] had no privilege to be on the property." State v. Janson, 183 Ohio App.3d 377, 379-380, 2009-Ohio-3256, ¶11-13.

Click to expand...

I must respectfully disagree. This case has no applicability in regards to Micro Center.

First, the trespass was under R.C. 2911.21(A)(2) not (A)(1).
Second, the property in the Janson case was a locked up private home not a business open to the public.
Third, your analogous stopped at paragraph 13, but ¶14 clearly states:

"In this case, the evidence at trial showed that the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office had control of the property for the purpose of conducting the foreclosure sale and could restrict who could enter the property. The evidence also showed that the sheriff’s office had not given Janson the right to enter the property. As a realtor who specialized in foreclosures, Janson could have arranged a legitimate viewing of the property without the necessity of climbing up a ladder and looking in a window without any kind of authorization."

Click to expand...

Unlike most businesses open to the public in which the police have no constructive control over the property, your example made clear that the police did have jurisdiction and control over the private home not open to the public.
In other words, as you say, possessory interest would be correct as it is stated in ¶12 when read in conjunction with ¶14.

State v. Janson has no applicability to the Micro Center scenario.

JediSkipdogg said:

So you write an entire post that mentions arrest without a warrant to contradict my post that stated getting a warrant is easy. Not sure what your post at all has to do with mine. I say get a warrant for the offense. It's easy to do.

Why do you keep quoting arrest without a warrant when I mention dealing with a warrant or dealing with it in the presence of an officer? NOWHERE did I say an officer should arrest someone not present then go to their house and arrest without a warrant?

I have two posts you attempted to contradict yet you backed up my posts exactly.

Scenario 1) Officer responds and the trespasser is still present when management told him to leave. Officer tells him to leave and he doesn't immediately leave. Arrest is allowed as it's in the presence of an officer with an employee present to state the subject is not welcome there.

Scenario 2) Subject has left but business wants to pursue charges or officer has prior knowledge subject has been told to not return. He can issue a warrant once identification is made.

What is wrong with either of those two scenarios? Both of your posts seem to back up both scenarios, so not sure how "I'm wrong" or posting "foolishness."

Click to expand...

I suggested you read R.C. 2935.09 and State v. Mbodji, 2011-Ohio-2880. Apparently you didn't.

Scenario 1) Officer responds and the trespasser is still present when management told him to leave. Officer tells him to leave and he doesn't immediately leave. Arrest is allowed as it's in the presence of an officer with an employee present to state the subject is not welcome there.

Click to expand...

The first sentence has no reverence as far as management telling the person to leave. The officer was not present to hear that request. The management telling the cop that they asked the person to leave is hearsay and is also irrelevant.
The second sentence has no legal effect. The officer on his own has no authority to tell the person to leave, none.
The third sentence is an incorrect conclusion as it relates to R.C. §2911.21(A)(1) because you said management/employee versus owner/occupant. Under R.C. §2911.21(A)(4) the agent or servant of the owner/occupant could ask the person to leave in front of the officer. And if the person did not leave then an arrest could result without a warrant.

Now, the officer could make out his own complaint/affidavit as to what the the owner/agent said (owner/agent hearsay) and ask the court to issue a warrant. But, the officer is betting the owner/agent will testify to the hearsay in court. City of Cincinnati police manual generally requires the officer to get an affidavit from the owner/agent before an arrest without a warrant. This is to protect the officer because if the owner/agent doesn't appear in court the case could be dismissed. If that happened the arrested could sue for false arrest. So it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

But, you originally said:

Originally Posted by JediSkipdogg: Why does it have to be in the presence of a police officer? Do you really think getting a warrant is hard for a violation? Business says you weren't allowed on the property. They get your license plate. Officer completes a photo lineup and business picks you out. Business swears out an affidavit that they asked you to leave. Officer fills out a complaint. Warrant issued for your arrest. Pretty simple and can all be done in less than an hour.

Click to expand...

Do you really think a warrant is going to be issued to arrest someone who left the land or premises?

Clerk of Court: So, officer let me get this straight, you want me the sign a warrant for a trespass by someone who is not on the land or premises at this time?
Officer: Correct.
Clerk of Court: Did this trespasser commit any other crime while trespassing?
Officer: No.
Clerk of Court: Do you have an affidavit from the owner/agent swearing this person trespassed and the owner/agent asked the person to leave?
Officer: No, but we have a license plate number.
Clerk of Court: Do you or the owner/agent know who was driving the car?
Officer: No.
Clerk of Court: Officer, then who am I issuing a warrant to arrest?
Officer: The owner of the car.
Clerk of Court: Officer, without more you ain't getting a warrant.

Why would anybody believe a store owner saying they want someone else to be arrested for trespass who is not on the property. Even if the a video showed the person shopping at the store and even if the video shows the owner/agent having a conversation with the person. I would not issue a warrant.

Scenario 2) Subject has left but business wants to pursue charges or officer has prior knowledge subject has been told to not return. He can issue a warrant once identification is made.

Click to expand...

This scenario was not your original premise. Now you want to change the facts. Prior knowledge to what? Prior knowledge of hearsay? Owner/agent never filed a formal complaint, but?

What is wrong with either of those two scenarios? Both of your posts seem to back up both scenarios, so not sure how "I'm wrong" or posting "foolishness."

Click to expand...

This is your standard operating procedure, change the facts. Don't let the facts distract ya from my clients story should be your by·line.

This is why I object to your general statements, they are general statements that have a little bit of truth, but in reality are not supported by law.

color of law said:

First, the trespass was under R.C. 2911.21(A)(2) not (A)(1).

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The point was by reference to the elements. R.C. 2911.21(A)(2) doesn't include a reference to "agent or servant," either.

color of law said:

Second, the property in the Janson case was a locked up private home not a business open to the public.

Click to expand...

The notion of a business invitee's privilege being inviolable and irrevocable was debunked a long time ago, under former R.C. 2909.21:

"In substance, the defendant urges in the present case that an unlawful entry is indispensable to a conviction under the terms of the statute, and that the status of a business invitee cannot be changed to that of a trespasser. If this be so, the subject statute employs considerable unnecessary verbiage, and its practical application could lead to bizarre results. For a mild example, in comparison with the facts of the present case, is a businessman helpless against the will of a customer who refuses to leave his store after closing hours? Or for a somewhat harsher example, may a business invitee who, like the defendant in the instant case, admits that he had no intention of making a purchase, use the business premises of another for his own gain with complete immunity after his invitation has been revoked?

"In our opinion, the trespass statute is not so impotent as suggested by the defendant. It not only provides that the entry upon the premises of another without lawful authority is an offense, but it also provides that remaining upon the premises of another without legal authority after being notified to leave is a misdemeanor." State v. Carriker, 5 Ohio App.2d 255, 258 (2d Dist. 1964).

If the Ohio General Assembly had intended there to be an absolute immunity for business invitees, they certainly would have included it in R.C. 2911.21 when they enacted it in 1974.

color of law said:

Now, the officer could make out his own complaint/affidavit as to what the the owner/agent said (owner/agent hearsay) and ask the court to issue a warrant. But, the officer is betting the owner/agent will testify to the hearsay in court. City of Cincinnati police manual generally requires the officer to get an affidavit from the owner/agent before an arrest without a warrant. This is to protect the officer because if the owner/agent doesn't appear in court the case could be dismissed. If that happened the arrested could sue for false arrest. So it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Click to expand...

False arrest because the owner/agent didn't show up? Get real. Happens ALL the time on theft, domestic violence, sexual assaults, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, stolen vehicle, etc. Yet you don't see every officer slapped monthly with false arrest? There's something called arrest in good faith. Courts have ruled time and time again as long as the arrest was in good faith, it doesn't matter what the outcome is.

color of law said:

But, you originally said:

Do you really think a warrant is going to be issued to arrest someone who left the land or premises?

Clerk of Court: So, officer let me get this straight, you want me the sign a warrant for a trespass by someone who is not on the land or premises at this time?
Officer: Correct.
Clerk of Court: Did this trespasser commit any other crime while trespassing?
Officer: No.
Clerk of Court: Do you have an affidavit from the owner/agent swearing this person trespassed and the owner/agent asked the person to leave?
Officer: No, but we have a license plate number.
Clerk of Court: Do you or the owner/agent know who was driving the car?
Officer: No.
Clerk of Court: Officer, then who am I issuing a warrant to arrest?
Officer: The owner of the car.
Clerk of Court: Officer, without more you ain't getting a warrant.

Click to expand...

You seem to think the court actually asks questions when a warrant is issued. They make sure everything is in the warrant and stamp it, they don't ask for any evidence before stamping. And the warrants are all based on "officer's investigation". Pull 90% of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and Warren county warrants, all the same. Not much more than that. And notice I said in my first time that a photo lineup would also be completed, that IDs the suspect.

color of law said:

Why would anybody believe a store owner saying they want someone else to be arrested for trespass who is not on the property. Even if the a video showed the person shopping at the store and even if the video shows the owner/agent having a conversation with the person. I would not issue a warrant.

This scenario was not your original premise. Now you want to change the facts. Prior knowledge to what? Prior knowledge of hearsay? Owner/agent never filed a formal complaint, but?

Click to expand...

Happens all the time. Subject arrested for theft at Kroger. At the time of arrest they are told they are no longer welcome back by the officer based on a verbal conversation with the manager. Any future thefts they are arrested for theft and trespass. Heck, just being in Kroger without stealing and they are trespassing. No formal complaint or affidavit, just prior arrest. Sticks all the time.

JediSkipdogg said:

False arrest because the owner/agent didn't show up? Get real. Happens ALL the time on theft, domestic violence, sexual assaults, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, stolen vehicle, etc. Yet you don't see every officer slapped monthly with false arrest? There's something called arrest in good faith. Courts have ruled time and time again as long as the arrest was in good faith, it doesn't matter what the outcome is.



You seem to think the court actually asks questions when a warrant is issued. They make sure everything is in the warrant and stamp it, they don't ask for any evidence before stamping. And the warrants are all based on "officer's investigation". Pull 90% of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and Warren county warrants, all the same. Not much more than that. And notice I said in my first time that a photo lineup would also be completed, that IDs the suspect.



Happens all the time. Subject arrested for theft at Kroger. At the time of arrest they are told they are no longer welcome back by the officer based on a verbal conversation with the manager. Any future thefts they are arrested for theft and trespass. Heck, just being in Kroger without stealing and they are trespassing. No formal complaint or affidavit, just prior arrest. Sticks all the time.

Click to expand...

Ad Hoc Escapism

Originally Posted by color of law
First, the trespass was under R.C. 2911.21(A)(2) not (A)(1).

Click to expand...

Werz said:

Irrelevant. The point was by reference to the elements. R.C. 2911.21(A)(2) doesn't include a reference to "agent or servant," either.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your contention. From what I can tell I never raised the issue or implied that owner versus agent was at issue between R.C. 2911.21(A)(1) and (A)(2). However, I did discuss that issue between R.C. 2911.21(A)(1) and (A)(4). Your explanation would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by color of law
Second, the property in the Janson case was a locked up private home not a business open to the public.

Click to expand...

Werz said:

The notion of a business invitee's privilege being inviolable and irrevocable was debunked a long time ago, under former R.C. 2909.21:

"In substance, the defendant urges in the present case that an unlawful entry is indispensable to a conviction under the terms of the statute, and that the status of a business invitee cannot be changed to that of a trespasser. If this be so, the subject statute employs considerable unnecessary verbiage, and its practical application could lead to bizarre results. For a mild example, in comparison with the facts of the present case, is a businessman helpless against the will of a customer who refuses to leave his store after closing hours? Or for a somewhat harsher example, may a business invitee who, like the defendant in the instant case, admits that he had no intention of making a purchase, use the business premises of another for his own gain with complete immunity after his invitation has been revoked?

"In our opinion, the trespass statute is not so impotent as suggested by the defendant. It not only provides that the entry upon the premises of another without lawful authority is an offense, but it also provides that remaining upon the premises of another without legal authority after being notified to leave is a misdemeanor." State v. Carriker, 5 Ohio App.2d 255, 258 (2d Dist. 1964).

If the Ohio General Assembly had intended there to be an absolute immunity for business invitees, they certainly would have included it in R.C. 2911.21 when they enacted it in 1974.

Click to expand...

First, the former R.C. 2909.21 referred to in State v. Carriker, mentioned above, is substantially equivalent to R.C. 2911.21(A)(4) relating to owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either... See 1974 Committee Comments to H 511.

I am at a loss to understand the connection between State v. Janson, 183 Ohio App.3d 377, 379-380, 2009-Ohio-3256 and State v. Carriker, 5 Ohio App. 2d 255 - Ohio: Court of Appeals 1964.

Janson case being about a locked-up private house that was under the control of the county sheriff versus Carriker being about a business open to the public. Carriker was a person who would not leave a store when asked. Specifically, Carriker was charged by affidavit that he did "unlawfully and without authority from the owner or agent thereof enter upon the premises of another at the Rike-Kumler Company, and upon being notified to depart therefrom did fail or refuse to depart." From what I glean from the case, Carriker was conducting his own personal business at a store that he was not partaking in the products or services being offered, in effect, loitering. It appeared that Carriker admitted that he had no intention of making a purchase, intended to use the business premises for his own gain with complete immunity after his invitation had been revoked. Hence, the decision of the court that Werz posted above.

The facts and circumstances are drastically different between the two cases. Based on the facts of those two cases and the resulting decisions I have no question, generally. But, neither of those cases have anything to do with the discussion at hand. The question is can an officer legally arrest without a warrant, after the completion of a minor offense not committed in the presence of the officer? And the answer is no. See City of Columbus, v. Holmes, 107 Ohio App. 391, 397-398 152 N.E.2d 301 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1958)