imported post
W.E.G. wrote:
I wonder what theory of agency law gives a police officer (who is DEFINITELY not the person in charge of the property) the authority to empower a store employee with the authority to ban somebody from a retail store?
The employee may, or may not, already have that authority by virtue of his employment. But, I'm pretty sure a "blessing" from a police officer won't give the cashier any more authority to ban people than the cashier had prior to the appearance of the police officer.
As for the "no guns" signs, those signs are at best a courtesy warning to persons who may bring an unwelcome item onto private property. A violation of a "no guns" sign does not automatically morph into grounds to support a trespassing conviction against a person whodisobeys the sign. In order to prove trespassing, there has to at least be specific notice to the violator that his presence with theunwelcome accessoryitem will will be regarded as trespass, or the the violator must be overtly banned by face-to-face communication. Fine print on a sign posted off the side of a public entrance won't cut it.
A cashier has little control over a store. There is always a manager, assistant manager, or anowner available at the business. Hearing from any of them is good enough. In the absence of those in charge... an employee wanting a disorderly person to leave is also acceptable.
So your saying that a door that says "employees only" means nothing and you can enter if you feel like it? It may not say "No Trespassing" but it is a sign and the state code does not identify what the sign must say. It clearly indicates that your are NOT welcome to enter.
So any location posting"NO FIREARMS" means the same thing as"No Trespassing"
§
18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a
sign or
signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§
16.1-253,
16.1-253.1,
16.1-253.4,
16.1-278.2 through
16.1-278.6,
16.1-278.8,
16.1-278.14,
16.1-278.15,
16.1-279.1,
19.2-152.8,
19.2-152.9 or §
19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to §
20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§
18.2-132 through
18.2-136.
