Sigger
Regular Member
Yeah, yeah, now that all that is settled, let's get to the essentials: which new router did you get?
Yeah, yeah, now that all that is settled, let's get to the essentials: which new router did you get?
Ask JediSkipdogg. JediSkipdogg knows everything.Yeah, yeah, now that all that is settled, let's get to the essentials: which new router did you get?
Ask JediSkipdogg. JediSkipdogg knows everything.
Oh, that's the question ...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?
A plausible scenario, yes, but legal?Oh, that's the question ...
Well, it depends. If the person is openly carrying a firearm into a store and is asked to leave, and if he decides to argue and make some gratuitous threat (e.g., "I'll kick your a$$!") before departing, the officer most certainly can track him down and arrest him without a warrant. A plausible scenario, yes?
"In any case, however, in order that an officer may be justified in making an arrest without a warrant for an offense not committed in his presence, but merely on suspicion of a crime committed, the crime must be at least technically a felony, either by common-law or by statute, and the officer making the arrest must have reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested committed it."
"It is the general rule, subject to statutory variations, that a misdemeanor must have been actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant, and the mere belief or suspicion that a misdemeanor is being, or has been, committed is insufficient to warrant an arrest without a warrant; nor may an arrest without a warrant be made on a belief, founded on information received from a third person, that a misdemeanor is being committed."
"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."
I'm sure that your handlers appreciate you broadcasting to the world that your officers violate peoples rights with impunity.And you claim to as well. How do officers arrest for the following without warrants....?
Domestic Violence?
Assault?
Theft?
All of those occur not in the presence of an officer and are minor offenses. Trespass is no difference and I've given two examples of how the arrest can and does occur all the time and sticks in court. You seem to fail to see how the process actually works.
Treatises are good for familiarizing someone with the general law. They do not have the force of law. Statutes do. That is why I used the foregoing scenario involved a gratuitous threat. And here's the statutory law:A plausible scenario, yes, but legal?Oh, that's the question ...
Well, it depends. If the person is openly carrying a firearm into a store and is asked to leave, and if he decides to argue and make some gratuitous threat (e.g., "I'll kick your a$$!") before departing, the officer most certainly can track him down and arrest him without a warrant. A plausible scenario, yes?
***
Long answer...
[deleted references to CJS and OJur]
***
Short answer, no...
I'm sure that your handlers appreciate you broadcasting to the world that your officers violate peoples rights with impunity.
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?
Treatises are good for familiarizing someone with the general law. They do not have the force of law. Statutes do. That is why I used the foregoing scenario involved a gratuitous threat. And here's the statutory law:
"No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person[.]" R.C. 2903.22(A).
"No person shall *** remain on the land or premises of another with purpose to commit on that land or those premises a misdemeanor, the elements of which involve *** causing another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to him." R.C. 2911.211(A).
"When there is reasonable ground to believe that *** the offense of aggravated trespass as defined in section 2911.211 of the Revised Code *** has been committed within the limits of the political subdivision *** in which the peace officer is appointed, employed, or elected or within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the peace officer, a peace officer *** may arrest and detain until a warrant can be obtained any person who the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the violation." R.C. 2935.03(B)(1).
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Oh, that's the question ...
Well, it depends. If the person is openly carrying a firearm into a store and is asked to leave, and if he decides to argue and make some gratuitous threat (e.g., "I'll kick your a$$!") before departing, the officer most certainly can track him down and arrest him without a warrant. A plausible scenario, yes?
2911.211(A) No person shall enter or remain on the land or premises of another with purpose to commit on that land or those premises a misdemeanor, the elements of which involve causing physical harm to another person or causing another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to him.
Your example did not present such scenario. Your example makes no mention that the shopper was there with purpose to commit a crime nor did the person remain on the land.However, as to the aggravated trespassing charge, the court finds that, while defendant entered Ashcraft's premises without permission and without privilege to be there, his mistaken judgment was a reckless act taken with the subjective intent of rescuing Amy and Kelly, rather than with the purpose of attempting to inflict physical harm on Ashcraft. The court therefore finds defendant Tomas not guilty of aggravated trespass in violation of R.C. 2911.211.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.You better report every officer in the state of Ohio. Not just the small department I work for. Give Mike Dewine a call, I'm sure he's interested.
But before you do, read up on Columbus v. Lenear.
In the instance of the commission of a misdemeanor, however, a warrantless arrest can be made only if the misdemeanor is committed in the presence of the arresting officer. R.C. 2935.03(A). What is required for a valid warrantless arrest is not that the officer have absolute knowledge that a misdemeanor is being committed in the sense of possessing evidence sufficient to support a conviction after trial, but, rather, that he be in a position to form a reasonable belief that a misdemeanor is being committed, based upon evidence perceived through his own senses. In other words, if, based upon circumstances perceivable by his own senses, a reasonable person would be justified in concluding that a misdemeanor is being committed in his presence, then, the warrantless arrest is valid.
So, no warrant needed.
You need to take this to management. First, you take it to the store manager, and if that gets no satisfaction, then you take it to corporate. Mention the provision under R.C. 2923.126(C)(3)(a) which provides for "gunbuster" signs. Forget about arguing the vague Internet term of "force of law." Most of the people who spew that term have no idea what it means. Use the term "fair notice." Tell them that if they want to ban guns in their stores, they have an obligation to tell you that up front, and not to have you embarrassed in front of your sons by some officious mall cop. If that is not their policy, then they should instruct their security personnel not to do that again. If that is their policy, they should tell you now, and you can spread the word to others who carry firearms that they are not welcome inside the company's stores.
For a commercial retailer, sales is the bottom line, and customer satisfaction is the only way to assure continued sales. Direct their attention to that which is most important to them.