Stevenson, wa

purlrider · Oct 28, 2011

I was passing through Stevenson Washington last Wed. I stopped at the " Main Street Convenience Store" to get a coffee to go. I had just completed fixing it with enough flavored creamers ( cause their coffee is really bad, but cheep and full of caffeine ) when the checker asked me across the room " are you a police officer?" When I told him know he told me I would have to take my gun outside. I asked him if he was the owner or a manager. He was neither. There is no posting and he told me there was not written policy. This conversation took place as I was approaching the counter to pay for my coffee. He then said " take your gun outside now". It was obvious he was not going to take my money till complied. Well, it was my cup so I asked " where would you like me to dump this". He pointed to a soda fountain drain. As I was pouring out the coffee a gentleman that had just came in asked me if "he (the checker ) was giving me crap about my gun?" I said yes and as I was leaving this fella (loud enough for the checker to hear, but not boisterously) said " well I am not going buy anything here then either."
What is strange a small town in the Gorge like Stevenson probably has more guns then people and an anti gun attitude from that store could cost them revenue if the populace there new.

Question.

Does any employee have the legal power to tell us without posting or policy to take our gun outside?

slapmonkay · Oct 28, 2011

purlrider said:
Question.

Does any employee have the legal power to tell us without posting or policy to take our gun outside?

He must have the power granted to him by the owner the property, upon power being granted he becomes an agent of the property. Typically, standard employees are not given this power. I would contact the store owner regarding this and the disadvantages of restricting access to law abiding citizens from there establishment if that is the stance the owner of the property takes as well.

purlrider · Oct 28, 2011

slapmonkay said:
He must have the power granted to him by the owner the property, upon power being granted he becomes an agent of the property. Typically, standard employees are not given this power. I would contact the store owner regarding this and the disadvantages of restricting access to law abiding citizens from there establishment if that is the stance the owner of the property takes as well.

Thanks for your input...

That was actually on my list of things to do. Your reply prompted me to do it right now however.
The managers name is Nikki.
As my story unfolded she said "oh your the guy, I was here that day but in a meeting." She went on to apologize and informed me that is not their policy. Asked rhetorically " you had it holstered, locked down and your hand wasn't on it, not a problem"
I thanked her and told her I would bring my money back to Main Street.

I you live in Skamania County or Oregon and Washington and know of this store...all is good at this time.

deanf · Oct 28, 2011

He must have the power granted to him by the owner the property, upon power being granted he becomes an agent of the property.

How do you know this?

The police and the criminal courts will not be concerned in the slightest with the internal policies of the business. If you had not left and that clerk called the cops, they would have ejected you, and not asked for any proof that the clerk has been authorized by management before they did so.

slapmonkay · Oct 28, 2011

deanf said:
How do you know this?

The police and the criminal courts will not be concerned in the slightest with the internal policies of the business. If you had not left and that clerk called the cops, they would have ejected you, and not asked for any proof that the clerk has been authorized by management before they did so.

A court should care who asked you to leave. In order to be traspassing by law you must be told by the owner of the property to leave, police officers can't even demand you to leave someone's private property even though they often do (even without property owner knowing). If the court does not look at who tells you to leave, who's not to say I can't tell you to leave Starbucks afterall you were asked to leave...

However...
Your right, there is no good way to know if someone that claims to have the power actually does. What I do is ask for card, name and job title. Addtionally ask for the owners contact information if the situation allows. Then I leave, I don't want to test there property rights.

Ill call the owner that day or following day requesting a meeting or talk over the phone. Indicate x person indicated they are an agent of the property and question this fact. Further ask the owners stance on self defense tools and try to get it in writing.

There are circumstances such as the OP that I would ask for the manager on duty. If ones not around then ill be on my way just to be safe.

deanf · Oct 28, 2011

Your right, there is no good way to know if someone that claims to have the power actually does.

There is no need to know, as there is no law prohibiting any employee from asking someone to leave. Any employee has the authority to eject you, and the private administrative rules of the employer are none of our business, and the police won't be concerned about them either when they come to eject you.

ghosthunter · Oct 29, 2011

I manage a C-Store have for 17 years. There is no law that says you have to be the owner. Clerks are agents of the store. Most managers will have given them guild lines to follow. My clerks regulary tell people to leave if they are shoplifting, causing some disturbance. My clerks also would have said nothing about your gun. If a person refuses to leave 911 is called.

slapmonkay · Oct 29, 2011

ghosthunter said:
I manage a C-Store have for 17 years. There is no law that says you have to be the owner. Clerks are agents of the store. Most managers will have given them guild lines to follow. My clerks regulary tell people to leave if they are shoplifting, causing some disturbance. My clerks also would have said nothing about your gun. If a person refuses to leave 911 is called.

First the definition of trespass:

RCW 9A.52.070 said:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

RCW 9A.52.010 said:
(3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner;

Now defenses:

RCW 9A.52.090 said:
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or

I personally would reasonable believe that the owner of the premises would license my access to his public building with my firearm. Unless, he posts signs saying the opposite or if the owner himself or agent of the property told me in person that I was not welcome.

deanf · Oct 29, 2011

Unless, he posts signs saying the opposite or if the owner himself or agent of the property told me in person that I was not welcome.

Everything you quoted is fine. When an employee tells you to leave, that's reasonable cause to believe your license to remain has been revoked.

This issue is settled. We've discussed this at length in this forum. Go back and read the old posts. Police officers and prosecutors who have actual street and court experience with trespass agree that any employee is an agent of the owner.

slapmonkay · Oct 29, 2011

deanf said:
When an employee tells you to leave, that's reasonable cause to believe your license to remain has been revoked.

I still question this statement. Personally, it depends on the title that employee has.

For instance, if I am at Walmart or Safeway, etc and the cart return person tells me I am not allowed there and that I had to leave I would not reasonably believe by law that he represents the interest of the owner and my license to remain is still intact. Now if its a manager of the store telling me I was not welcome I would consider it revoked since he is management.

When it comes to a smaller businesses, I would error more on the side of caution. If there is only 1 or 2 people working at the business at the time I would leave on request and follow the steps I mentioned earlier (contact owner directly).

I guess what I am saying its not clear cut and each scenario needs to be handled individually given the circumstances. Verification of the individual enforcing the property rights will be done by my part as much as I can while I am on my way off the property.

Metalhead47 · Oct 29, 2011

deanf said:
Everything you quoted is fine. When an employee tells you to leave, that's reasonable cause to believe your license to remain has been revoked.

This issue is settled. We've discussed this at length in this forum. Go back and read the old posts. Police officers and prosecutors who have actual street and court experience with trespass agree that any employee is an agent of the owner.

So what happens in a situation like Walmart or Starbucks where the owner has clearly and publicly said firearms are NOT prohibited, but the agent of the business (employee) asks you to leave any way?

deanf · Oct 29, 2011

So what happens in a situation like Walmart or Starbucks where the owner has clearly and publicly said firearms are NOT prohibited, but the agent of the business (employee) asks you to leave any way?

You leave.

They can make up the rules on the spot. The police and the criminal courts will not care about their internal rules or any rules they have publicly proclaimed. They can change them at will with no prior notice required. That's why the police and criminal courts will not care.

amlevin · Oct 30, 2011

deanf said:
You leave.

Along with your money. It's even makes a bigger statement when they do it after you've filled your basket with a few hundred dollars of merchandise than just walk away from it.

As for Stevenson, WA, the last time I drove through there I could have sworn I say two guys sitting on a porch in front of an old store. One had a Guitar and the other a Banjo

Just remember the farther down a river you go the stranger the people get. Must come from drinking out of the river after it's been through several sewage treatment plants upstream.

Metalhead47 · Oct 30, 2011

amlevin said:
Along with your money. It's even makes a bigger statement when they do it after you've filled your basket with a few hundred dollars of merchandise than just walk away from it.

As for Stevenson, WA, the last time I drove through there I could have sworn I say two guys sitting on a porch in front of an old store. One had a Guitar and the other a Banjo

Just remember the farther down a river you go the stranger the people get. Must come from drinking out of the river after it's been through several sewage treatment plants upstream.

Strange all right. Simple-living folk who work hard, expect little, self-reliant, don't demand ever-increasing gov't presence to regulate their neighbors. Know where their meat comes from, were "organic" and raised chickens in the back yard before it was "in."
Very strange.

Think I'd rather associate with a banjo-strumming hick from Stevenson than some pretentious big-gov't socialist Seattlite eunuch.

Difdi · Oct 30, 2011

deanf said:
You leave.

They can make up the rules on the spot. The police and the criminal courts will not care about their internal rules or any rules they have publicly proclaimed. They can change them at will with no prior notice required. That's why the police and criminal courts will not care.

And yet...if an employee directly contravenes the orders of the owner, is he still the agent of the owner, even as he acts against the source of his own authority?

I would consider such a conflict reason to believe that he is, in fact, not acting as the "other person empowered to license access thereto" defined in the law.

deanf · Oct 30, 2011

And yet...if an employee directly contravenes the orders of the owner, is he still the agent of the owner, even as he acts against the source of his own authority?

Again, the internal workings and administrative rules of the business are none of our concern. Who reports to whom and the authority they hold is irrelevant in the criminal context.

Difdi · Oct 31, 2011

deanf said:
Again, the internal workings and administrative rules of the business are none of our concern. Who reports to whom and the authority they hold is irrelevant in the criminal context.

If that were true, one employee of a store could have another employee, of equal or even greater rank, arrested for trespassing in the store. Or even the store owner. Because things like the relative authority of managers VS regular employees is purely an administrative rule.

gogodawgs · Oct 31, 2011

Difdi said:
If that were true, one employee of a store could have another employee, of equal or even greater rank, arrested for trespassing in the store. Or even the store owner. Because things like the relative authority of managers VS regular employees is purely an administrative rule.

Yes, and again it is none of our business.

Difdi · Nov 2, 2011

gogodawgs said:
Yes, and again it is none of our business.

It occurs to me that that would make an interesting plot for a crime novel. Show up at a store in a store manager uniform, call cops, have them arrest ALL other employees for trespassing, then lock the doors and steal everything not nailed down.

The law can't be that silly, can it?

amlevin · Nov 2, 2011

Difdi said:
The law can't be that silly, can it?

Depends on the people passing them

It seems like this State goes through cycles where some real wingnuts hold a majority in the Legislature and can get just about anything passed.

That's why it's important to pay attention to the Legislative Agenda.

Even better, vote in some people that can think.

Stevenson, wa

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member