A place which exists for the purpose of retail sales and does not screen nor bar the public from entry cannot reasonably be concluded to be anything but open to the public. If the police, held to a higher standard of scrutiny, are not barred from entry to a place that is implied to be open to the public by the mere posting of a sign presumably outlining rules of access, how can you seriously argue that the general public would be held to that standard?
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/appellate/102wnapp/102wnapp0641.htm
Peters, the case you just cited, is inapposite to the storefront scenario.
Peters primarily deals with expectations of privacy. The storefront scenario that we have been discussing is not about privacy interests of property owners. The agents in
Peters had lawful access because the legislature empowered them to inspect facilities to ensure that they meet certain standards. When an establishment opens itself for commerce where that business provides septic services, it is subject to
required inspection of any septic facilities it may have and that are being held out to the general public for use (although, the agent so empowered may have to resort to obtaining a warrant to do the inspection). RCW 43.70.200.
Peters does not stand for the proposition that the general public and the police are on equal footing in their rights to carry firearms in restricted places. Moreover, whenever a business (or an individual, for that matter) asserts a trespass claim, that claim is a civil trespass claim and the standard for enforcement is
very different than a criminal trespass charge.
The common law tort of trespass is an "intrusion onto the property of another that interferes with the other's right to exclusive possession."
Bosteder v. City of Renton, 155 Wn.2d 18, 50, 117 P.3d 316 (2005) (quoting
Phillips v. King County, 136 Wn.2d 946, 957, 968 P.2d 871 (1998)). A person has interfered with another's exclusive possession if he intentionally enters land or causes a third person to do so even if the person does not harm any legally protected interest.
Hoskin v. Larsen, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84704, 28-29 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2007)
How can I argue what I am saying? Because that is how the law reads. I don't make the law, I simply interpret it when necessary to advocate the cause of my client. Otherwise, I just let the courts do their job of law interpretation. Your misunderstanding apparently flows from your belief that trespass is always criminal in nature. Not so. A person "is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally . . . enters land in the possession of the other, or causes . . . a third person to do so." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 158 (1965); see
Bradley v. American Smelting & Ref. Co., 104 Wn.2d 677, 681, 709 P.2d 782 (1985). However, "[a] duty or authority imposed or created by legislative enactment carries with it the privilege to enter land in the possession of another for the purpose of performing or exercising such duty or authority in so far as the entry is reasonably necessary to such performance or exercise, if, but only if, all the requirements of the enactment are fulfilled." RESTATEMENT, supra, § 211.
Peters v. Vinatieri, 102 Wn. App. 641, 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). In any event,
Peters does not stand for the proposition that a "blanket" right to be free of liability and to ignore conditions of access set by the owner of the establishment exists simply because "everyone ignores the posting."
Seattle makes it a bit more clear that the order must be personally communicated. In every other case I can find, though, the case involved notice of trespass being given and the trespasser knowingly violating that. I cannot find a single incident where a person was charged for criminal trespass merely for entering a retail premises open to the public and knowingly or unknowingly violating things posted on the door. Merely making a reasonable effort does not meet the burden of it being beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew you were restricted from entry, and that is the standard of the state (citation if you need it, I just spent lunch reading through trespassing case law).
Please do provide the citation(s). (and I find it dubious that, over lunch, you read through the entire 1835 trespass cases reported in Washington Courts alone). However, please ensure that your authority pertains to
civil trespass (a tort, for which there lies a private remedy) and not
criminal trespass (which is punitive in nature and provides for a public, disciplinary remedy).
