Removed from Walmart in Spokane

[deanf]

imported post

I haven't seen a response yet that negates my examples validity as an "unlawful condition" if imposed by the premise owner. Based on item (2) in the RCW your 3rd choice is not legally required, and your 2nd choice might be defensible in court.

I think maybe we are presuming that they need a reason to ask you yo leave. ????

They don't. They can just say "leave" and you have to. It is private property.

I understand your argument about asking a non-CPL holder to cover. I get it. And if it only went that far, you might be right. But if you retort with "well that's illegal because I don't have a CPL" then the business can just say "leave" and you don't really have a choice. Again, they don't need a reason. If you really want one, they could just say "we don't allow guns. Leave."

 

[Kildars]

imported post

deanf wrote:

(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

The other person empowered would be any representative of the business. The license can be revoked by anyone.

If I reasonably believe the owner would allow me on the premises (which they do). I can not be cited/arrested for trespassing. It's right their in the law. It's saying someone other than the owner can also allow me to be there meaning I would reasonably believe I could be there. It does not say that because a manager says I must leave that I can not then reasonably believe the owner wouldn't allow me.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

Whether or not you have to leave really isn't at issue -- that's your discretion. If you can get cited/convicted of trespassing is what I'm talking about.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deanf wrote:

I think maybe we are presuming that they need a reason to ask you yo leave. ????

They don't. They can just say "leave" and you have to. It is private property.

I understand your argument about asking a non-CPL holder to cover. I get it. And if it only went that far, you might be right. But if you retort with "well that's illegal because I don't have a CPL" then the business can just say "leave" and you don't really have a choice. Again, they don't need a reason. If you really want one, they could just say "we don't allow guns. Leave."

Unfortunately, that makes sense. Thanks for discussing it!

 

[deanf]

imported post

Kildars, I don't understand your arguments. Perhaps you could rephrase?

 

[Kildars]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Kildars, I don't understand your arguments. Perhaps you could rephrase?

Sure, no problem.

You stated that would be cited for trespassing if you refused to leave an establishment after a manager told you so. I explained that I am not questioning whether the officers would tell you that you need to leave. However, I do not think a trespassing charge would stick due to the defense I listed in the RCW. If I know the corporate policy is to follow state law and there are no signs posted than I would reasonably believe that the owner would allow me to be there, even if a manager (lower than the owner) tells me no.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

deanf wrote:

Kildars, I don't understand your arguments. Perhaps you could rephrase?

Sure, no problem.

You stated that would be cited for trespassing if you refused to leave an establishment after a manager told you so. I explained that I am not questioning whether the officers would tell you that you need to leave. However, I do not think a trespassing charge would stick due to the defense I listed in the RCW. If I know the corporate policy is to follow state law and there are no signs posted than I would reasonably believe that the owner would allow me to be there, even if a manager (lower than the owner) tells me no.

That has nothing to do with the law however. The fact that an employee misquoted a policy is not a legal defense. Once they ask you to leave you need to leave, then you can sort it out with that persons supervisor afterwords on your own time. That issue has no effect on your legal problemof being tresspassed.

Edit: The only way to use it as a defense would be if the owner then came to the police and said, "we would like to cancel / drop the tresspass, turns out we do allow him to do ________ and we don't mind if he comes back now."

You don't get to say, their policy says I can do ________ so I am allowed to be there no matter what employee x says.

 

[deanf]

imported post

If I know the corporate policy is to follow state law and there are no signs posted than I would reasonably believe that the owner would allow me to be there, even if a manager (lower than the owner) tells me no.

But for the purposes of the criminal law, the business can change the rules any time they want for any reason they want (or no reason at all) and as many times as they want, and you must comply, as long as you are not a member of a protected class. The internal rules of the business are none of our concern, and they will not be of concern to the criminal court.

By virtue of the fact that the employee is working at the business, they have custodial possession. That means they control the property. The employee's violation of the internal rules of the business is not our concern, when faced with an order to leave.

The "other person empowered to license access thereto" is any employee. Once you reasonably believe they have revoked your license, you must leave. Your reasonable belief would end once they gave you the order to leave.

A couple more points: Posting of rules or not makes no difference. Again, the business can change it's rules at any time, and as many times as it wants, with no notice required.

If I know the corporate policy is to follow state law

Maybe you are under the impression they are required to have a reason for you to leave? There is nothing in the law to support that belief. Again, the corporate policy does not matter. The employee can just order you to leave, no reason required.

As to being convicted? Predicting what a court or jury will decide is tough, but if the employee testifies that they told you to leave, and you refused, I don't see how you can defend that. Proviso (3) clearly authorizes revocation of your license to remain to anyone who would have the power to grant you license. It's absurd to contend that the same person who has the authority to grant you license does not have the authority to revoke the same license.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

Well we have obvious disagreements, but I digress. Arguing over the interpretation of an RCW seems pointless.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

Well we have obvious disagreements, but I digress. Arguing over the interpretation of an RCW seems pointless.

I missed the last page or arguements so I went back and looked:

(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

This arguement does not apply the way you think or are using it. You are using it as a defense for after you were already ordered to leave by an employee. That is not how the RCW applies.

The RCW subsection quoted is a defense for when a personbeing accused of tresspassingis being accused of it by law enforcement and not the owner of the property. For example... You are on the roof of a store after hours, police spot you and after questioning they have no reason to believe you are breaking into the place, but you are not an employee either so they cite you for tresspassing, you then go to court and say that the owner had allowed you to use the roof in the past for bird watching, so you had reason to believe it was allowed by the owner of the premise.

As soon as ANY employee of a store, whether that person is an owner or not, tells you that you need to leave the property you no longer have any reason to believe you are empowered access. So that RCW subsection is no longer valid in your case AT ALL.

At that point their corporate policy doesn't matter at all, because you were verbally notified by a person with authority over that property that you were no longer welcome. So any logical person would have no reason to believe they are empowered to be on that property for any reason.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

So, what if you carry a letter specifically naming you, signed by the owner saying that you do not have to leave if conducting lawful business during posted business hours, no matter what the employees say or unlawfully order within, and that such employees are to consider themselves fired as soon as they read the letter?

 

[David.Car]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

So, what if you carry a letter specifically naming you, signed by the owner saying that you do not have to leave if conducting lawful business during posted business hours, no matter what the employees say or unlawfully order within, and that such employees are to consider themselves fired as soon as they read the letter?

In your weird hypothetical situation that will never happen... Unless the owner is in the store to confirm or deny your contract,any employee acting on the employers behalf may request you leave or be tresspassed. At that point you should leave, call said owner and have him deal with said employee and say it is okay for you to return.

It is not a law enforcement officers place to look at a supposed contract and then enforce it, that is a courts responsibility.The LEOneeds to enforce the law to the best of their ability. That is all.

A cop reporting to the scene might look at your contract, they might not. But they would still ask the employee if they wanted you tresspassed. If that employee says yes, you better believe your ass will be leaveing that store contract or not.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

So, what if you carry a letter specifically naming you, signed by the owner saying that you do not have to leave if conducting lawful business during posted business hours, no matter what the employees say or unlawfully order within, and that such employees are to consider themselves fired as soon as they read the letter?

In your weird hypothetical situation that will never happen... Unless the owner is in the store to confirm or deny your contract,any employee acting on the employers behalf may request you leave or be tresspassed. At that point you should leave, call said owner and have him deal with said employee and say it is okay for you to return.

It is not a law enforcement officers place to look at a supposed contract and then enforce it, that is a courts responsibility.The LEOneeds to enforce the law to the best of their ability. That is all.

A cop reporting to the scene might look at your contract, they might not. But they would still ask the employee if they wanted you tresspassed. If that employee says yes, you better believe your ass will be leaveing that store contract or not.

I never said it was a contract. Just something that you hold in the employee's face immediately as they ask you to leave, well before they call the cops. Unless they're the type to call the cops before asking you to leave, which is improper legal trespass procedure in some states.

Alright, so let's add notarization, thumbprint, it's on the company letterhead, it has the code that equates to their termination from the contract all employees read and sign at time of hire, and the direct phone number of the owner to confirm?

 

[David.Car]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

So, what if you carry a letter specifically naming you, signed by the owner saying that you do not have to leave if conducting lawful business during posted business hours, no matter what the employees say or unlawfully order within, and that such employees are to consider themselves fired as soon as they read the letter?

In your weird hypothetical situation that will never happen... Unless the owner is in the store to confirm or deny your contract,any employee acting on the employers behalf may request you leave or be tresspassed. At that point you should leave, call said owner and have him deal with said employee and say it is okay for you to return.

It is not a law enforcement officers place to look at a supposed contract and then enforce it, that is a courts responsibility.The LEOneeds to enforce the law to the best of their ability. That is all.

A cop reporting to the scene might look at your contract, they might not. But they would still ask the employee if they wanted you tresspassed. If that employee says yes, you better believe your ass will be leaveing that store contract or not.

I never said it was a contract. Just something that you hold in the employee's face before they call the cops.

Alright, so let's add notarization, thumbprint, it's on the company letterhead, it has the code that equates to their termination from the contract all employees read and sign at time of hire, and the direct phone number of the owner to confirm?

If the owner is not able to tell the police himself in person then the police will go by whatever the employee on site says. If the employee read your "contract" and still wanted you tresspassed the police would tresspass you.

Whether the employee then gets fired later on or not has no effect on the law being enforced.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

So, what if you carry a letter specifically naming you, signed by the owner saying that you do not have to leave if conducting lawful business during posted business hours, no matter what the employees say or unlawfully order within, and that such employees are to consider themselves fired as soon as they read the letter?

In your weird hypothetical situation that will never happen... Unless the owner is in the store to confirm or deny your contract,any employee acting on the employers behalf may request you leave or be tresspassed. At that point you should leave, call said owner and have him deal with said employee and say it is okay for you to return.

It is not a law enforcement officers place to look at a supposed contract and then enforce it, that is a courts responsibility.The LEOneeds to enforce the law to the best of their ability. That is all.

A cop reporting to the scene might look at your contract, they might not. But they would still ask the employee if they wanted you tresspassed. If that employee says yes, you better believe your ass will be leaveing that store contract or not.

I never said it was a contract. Just something that you hold in the employee's face immediately as they ask you to leave, well before they call the cops. Unless they're the type to call the cops before asking you to leave, which is improper legal trespass procedure in some states.

Alright, so let's add notarization, thumbprint, it's on the company letterhead, it has the code that equates to their termination from the contract all employees read and sign at time of hire, and the direct phone number of the owner to confirm?

If the owner is not able to tell the police himself in person then the police will go by whatever the employee on site says. If the employee read your "contract" and still wanted you tresspassed the police would tresspass you.

Whether the employee then gets fired later on or not has no effect on the law being enforced.

Is it just me, or is the cite missing for in person, not by phone or by notarized/printed letter, by owner, withdrawal of trespass?

And good job assuming that the person possessing the letter would not retire to his vehicle as soon as the ex-employee starts dialing 911 and notify the owner his ex-employee is refusing to vacate and acting as his agent illegally after being fired.

 

[turbodog]

imported post

G22Paddy wrote:

How about Cabelas? I know they have a sign on their door that says firearms being brought in for repair must be checked in at the front desk, and it doesnt apply to conceal permit holders.

Do a site search for cabela's to see other threads. Basically, they say they follow state law on the subject of firearms

 

[Kildars]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

Kildars wrote:

Well we have obvious disagreements, but I digress. Arguing over the interpretation of an RCW seems pointless.

I missed the last page or arguements so I went back and looked:

(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

This arguement does not apply the way you think or are using it. You are using it as a defense for after you were already ordered to leave by an employee. That is not how the RCW applies.

The RCW subsection quoted is a defense for when a personbeing accused of tresspassingis being accused of it by law enforcement and not the owner of the property. For example... You are on the roof of a store after hours, police spot you and after questioning they have no reason to believe you are breaking into the place, but you are not an employee either so they cite you for tresspassing, you then go to court and say that the owner had allowed you to use the roof in the past for bird watching, so you had reason to believe it was allowed by the owner of the premise.

As soon as ANY employee of a store, whether that person is an owner or not, tells you that you need to leave the property you no longer have any reason to believe you are empowered access. So that RCW subsection is no longer valid in your case AT ALL.

At that point their corporate policy doesn't matter at all, because you were verbally notified by a person with authority over that property that you were no longer welcome. So any logical person would have no reason to believe they are empowered to be on that property for any reason.

I'm just curious if you have any legal court cases that back up what you say or is this just your opinion of what the law says? I understand you feel your opinion is correct but unless you have a court case, decided by judges, backing it up. That's what it is, an opinion.

I've told employees that I will not leave before until I talk to a manager before and the manager has sided with me. I have hard time believing that any dick swinging employee can ask me to leave when they can not make any other decisions about that business and how it's run.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

See 86 Wn. App. 807, STATE OF WA v. R.H. (Juvenile Case hence the initials).

It was a case where an owner allowed skateboarding on his premise as a form of transportation but not recreational skating.


This case shows that the implied permission of the owner (even if not present) [by way of corporate policy or store rule] is a defense to even a manager asking to leave the property and you can not be cited/convicted of criminal trespass for either a) returning or b) failing to exit when you reasonably believe the owner would allow you on the property.

Also the burden to disprove your defense beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the state.

[1] R.H. was charged with trespass because he returned to a fast food restaurant after the police ordered him to leave.«1» The restaurant is owned by Rick Corbitt, who allows skateboarding as a form of transportation to and from his business. Neither recreational skateboarding nor loitering is allowed.
On July 7, 1995, Tom Herzog was managing the restaurant for Corbitt and had the authority to evict individuals. [Stating that he has the "authority to evict individuals" would seem to imply that not every employee has the authority to do that. - Added by Kildars] On that evening, several young people were loitering and skateboarding in the parking lot of the restaurant. Herzog twice asked them to leave, but they did not. R.H. arrived later by skateboard. He planned to eat at the restaurant with a friend and waited in the parking lot for that friend.
Herzog summoned the police to disperse the youths. He asked the responding officers to evict the entire group of young people. The officer brought the group together and told them if they did not leave the premises, they would be arrested for criminal trespass. R.H. believed this order did not apply to him because he planned to patronize the restaurant. At the hearing, Herzog testified that if R.H. planned to eat at the restaurant and was waiting for a friend to accompany him, he would have had permission to remain on the property.

 

[deanf]

imported post

Was R.H. convicted? Was his conviction overturned? It doesn't say. We need a link.

Stating that he has the "authority to evict individuals" would seem to imply that not every employee has the authority to do that. - Added by Kildars

No, that's what you infer.

Remember, we operate under a British Common Law system. That means that whatever is not specifically illegal is allowed. That means that if store employees at any level are not specifically restricted in who they may evict, then they may evict anyone. Where in the criminal law of Washington are store employees of any grade specifically restricted in this context?

You have trouble separating criminal law from civil. I think that is the crux of your difficulty.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Was R.H. convicted? Was his conviction overturned? It doesn't say. We need a link.

Stating that he has the "authority to evict individuals" would seem to imply that not every employee has the authority to do that. - Added by Kildars

No, that's what you infer.

Remember, we operate under a British Common Law system. That means that whatever is not specifically illegal is allowed. That means that if store employees at any level are not specifically restricted in who they may evict, then they may evict anyone. Where in the criminal law of Washington are store employees of any grade specifically restricted in this context?

You have trouble separating criminal law from civil. I think that is the crux of your difficulty.

I honestly would appreciate it if you could have a debate with me without telling me what you think my problems are. I may not have a law degree, or anything close, but I have gone to school and studied Criminal Law and Criminal Justice as that is the field I wish to pursue, if you can't refrain from attacking me personally or what you think my problems are, then I will just ignore your posts. I have not insulted or attacked you in any way. R.H. was convicted and it was overturned on appeal.

Can you explain another reason why the Court of Appeals would state that he had the right to evict, if the right to evict was inherent and obvious? Of course that's my opinion -- that's what we're arguing here, right? Do you have case law to back up what you're stating?