#BlackinAmerica

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Yes, actually, you do. They cannot arrest you without reason. People have rights in the US, regardless of their ethnicity.

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

NSFW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

Another Waffle House story. This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous. The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges. They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff. She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous. One of the cops tells her he is GOING TO BREAK HER ARM. So after an unjust struggle because they wouldn't tell her the charges, they hurt her enough to put handcuffs on her and take her to the station. After all is said and done, they charge her with disorderly conduct because, you know, she made a scene they treated her inconsistently and inconsistent with the rest of society, arrested her without charge, threatened her, and exposed her breasts in front of everyone.

WARNING: be careful of looking at any videos or links at work. NSFW.

Reading the article it's clear she was resisting. You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Asking the police why they are arresting you is the same as resisting arrest?

She was demanding an answer before she would cooperate with being cuffed. That's resisting arrest.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Yes, actually, you do. They cannot arrest you without reason. People have rights in the US, regardless of their ethnicity.

There is a quite limited period of time they have to bring charges but they are not required to do so at the moment they arrest you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Yes, actually, you do. They cannot arrest you without reason. People have rights in the US, regardless of their ethnicity.

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

 

[laughing dog]

Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

Do tell how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Playball40]

Actually, NO, they were never asked to leave by the Starbucks employee. They were not asked to "buy" anything by the police. It's fucking racism. Why so hard for you to accept?

Because

1. because the business model of coffee shops like Starbucks is to have people linger while using the free wifi, meet up with friends, and buy coffee drinks or smoothies, not just buy a cup of coffee and leave.

2. white people waiting for friends aren't kicked out

3. if the shop decides to ask a customer to leave, the normal procedure is to do so politely and only call the cops if they refuse or are disruptive or threatening

4. white people who remain polite and cooperative aren't taken out in handcuffs and held for 8 hours but those two polite and cooperative black men were.

5. people keep making stupid arguments in defense of shitty customer service, apparent racism, and cops arresting people who were in no way causing any problems at all.




They were there 2 minutes before the cops were called. The manager hadn't ask them to leave. The other customers told the cops that the two guys hadn't done anything and objected to how the men were being treated. The guy they were meeting showed up as the 2 were being placed in handcuffs and told the cops about the planned meeting. So why the arrests? Even the police chief is saying it was uncalled for, but you're claiming the laws against loitering apply to Starbucks customers holding off on ordering drinks until their friends arrive?

I usually go to a nearby Starbucks on Saturdays and to meet up with family and friends. I don't always order a latte the moment I arrive. Do you think they're going to call the cops 2 minutes after I arrive if I don't?

They were arrested because they were asked to leave or buy something and did not. They would not have been arrested even after the police arrived if they just left. The present moral panic is embarrassing.

 

[Malintent]

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

Do tell how you came to that conclusion.

[LP]Police officers don't act inappropriately and all of their decisions are above the board, therefore if they did something there must be good reason for what they did.[/LP]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

 

[Arctish]

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

It seems to be a common misperception that cops are allowed to act as bouncers for a business without having to follow the laws regarding probable cause to make an arrest. We saw the same thing when United Airlines employees called on airport security to remove Dr. Dao from his seat, and very recently when the cops arrested the two men at Starbucks because the manager wanted them gone.

 

[coloradoatheist]

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

It seems to be a common misperception that cops are allowed to act as bouncers for a business without having to follow the laws regarding probable cause to make an arrest. We saw the same thing when United Airlines employees called on airport security to remove Dr. Dao from his seat, and very recently when the cops arrested the two men at Starbucks because the manager wanted them gone.

Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

 

[Arctish]

Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

 

[Arctish]

Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

Cops can't just walk up to you and say "get out" and then arrest you if you don't immediately comply. They can threaten you with a citation that will require you to appear in court and might result in a fine, but they can't just haul you out in handcuffs. You have civil rights and civil liberties that the cops are not allowed to violate.

For the cops to act lawfully in removing a customer from the premises, a Notice of Trespass has to be given. Not in an informal, casual "you have to leave now" kind of way, but as an official notice. The second requirement is probable cause. There must be probable cause to believe a person who has been given a notice of trespass is currently violating it before an arrest for violating a notice of trespass can be made.

You guys arguing that citizens must immediately comply with police officers or be arrested on the spot are pretty scary. Not because I fear you personally, but because your ideas about the powers of police officers to incarcerate citizens are like something out of a Franz Kafka novel.


ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -



I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

Cops can't just walk up to you and say "get out" and then arrest you if you don't immediately comply. They can threaten you with a citation that will require you to appear in court and might result in a fine, but they can't just haul you out in handcuffs. You have civil rights and civil liberties that the cops are not allowed to violate.

For the cops to act lawfully in removing a customer from the premises, a Notice of Trespass has to be given. Not in an informal, casual "you have to leave now" kind of way, but as an official notice. The second requirement is probable cause. There must be probable cause to believe a person who has been given a notice of trespass is currently violating it before an arrest for violating a notice of trespass can be made.

You guys arguing that citizens must immediately comply with police officers or be arrested on the spot are pretty scary. Not because I fear you personally, but because your ideas about the powers of police officers to incarcerate citizens are like something out of a Franz Kafka novel.


ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

If you are on someone else's property, they have asked you to leave by the way of the cops and you refuse to leave then it is trespassing. The written note is incredibly dumb because let's say that you are walking toward your apartment and hear someone in your apartment that shouldn't be there. By your reasoning I would have to go in my apartment, tell the person to leave and if they don't then I would have to go down to the courthouse and get paperwork saying that the person in my apartment isn't wanted in there and then come back. That's hoping the court house is open. Or I walk past, call the cops, they ask the person to leave and if they refuse to leave the apartment, they are arrested.

 

[Arctish]

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

Cops can't just walk up to you and say "get out" and then arrest you if you don't immediately comply. They can threaten you with a citation that will require you to appear in court and might result in a fine, but they can't just haul you out in handcuffs. You have civil rights and civil liberties that the cops are not allowed to violate.

For the cops to act lawfully in removing a customer from the premises, a Notice of Trespass has to be given. Not in an informal, casual "you have to leave now" kind of way, but as an official notice. The second requirement is probable cause. There must be probable cause to believe a person who has been given a notice of trespass is currently violating it before an arrest for violating a notice of trespass can be made.

You guys arguing that citizens must immediately comply with police officers or be arrested on the spot are pretty scary. Not because I fear you personally, but because your ideas about the powers of police officers to incarcerate citizens are like something out of a Franz Kafka novel.


ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

If you are on someone else's property, they have asked you to leave by the way of the cops and you refuse to leave then it is trespassing.

The cops are not employees of private businesses and should not act as their bouncers. They are law enforcement officials. They are a part of the government. Legally they can only act in accordance with the laws they are sworn to uphold.

The written note is incredibly dumb because let's say that you are walking toward your apartment and hear someone in your apartment that shouldn't be there. By your reasoning I would have to go in my apartment, tell the person to leave and if they don't then I would have to go down to the courthouse and get paperwork saying that the person in my apartment isn't wanted in there and then come back. That's hoping the court house is open. Or I walk past, call the cops, they ask the person to leave and if they refuse to leave the apartment, they are arrested.

If someone is in my apartment who shouldn't be there, then there is reason to believe the crime of breaking and entering has been committed. That's probable cause for an arrest. But a customer waiting for a friend before ordering hasn't committed a crime, and one who hasn't been given notice of trespass can't be charged with violating it.

Cops aren't 'muscle' for business.

 

[coloradoatheist]

ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

And most cases are like that. The police ask you to leave the restaurant, you leave and not get arrested.

The cops are not employees of private businesses and should not act as their bouncers. They are law enforcement officials. They are a part of the government. Legally they can only act in accordance with the laws they are sworn to uphold.

Except legally the are the bouncers, that's their job. They get to use force if someone doesn't want to leave a property where a bouncer can't use force if they don't comply

If someone is in my apartment who shouldn't be there, then there is reason to believe the crime of breaking and entering has been committed. That's probable cause for an arrest. But a customer waiting for a friend before ordering hasn't committed a crime, and one who hasn't been given notice of trespass can't be charged with violating it.

Cops aren't 'muscle' for business.

I partially agree with you in circumstances here. But the probable cause, the store calling police and asking them to leave is half of the probable cause, the second half is informing the person that the store asked them to leave. And it's the failure to leave on the part of the person is the trespass. The lack of probably cause would be the first part, that the store did not want them to leave. Was there any doubt in this case the store wanted them to leave?

 

[Arctish]

And most cases are like that. The police ask you to leave the restaurant, you leave and not get arrested.




Except legally the are the bouncers, that's their job. They get to use force if someone doesn't want to leave a property where a bouncer can't use force if they don't comply

No, they're not bouncers. They aren't employed by businesses, they are public servants empowered by the state to enforce the law. And even though they are authorized to use force in situations where ordinary citizens are not, they are required to follow the law just like everybody else. They need probable cause before they can use their authority to detain or arrest someone.

If someone is in my apartment who shouldn't be there, then there is reason to believe the crime of breaking and entering has been committed. That's probable cause for an arrest. But a customer waiting for a friend before ordering hasn't committed a crime, and one who hasn't been given notice of trespass can't be charged with violating it.

Cops aren't 'muscle' for business.

I partially agree with you in circumstances here. But the probable cause, the store calling police and asking them to leave is half of the probable cause, the second half is informing the person that the store asked them to leave. And it's the failure to leave on the part of the person is the trespass. The lack of probably cause would be the first part, that the store did not want them to leave. Was there any doubt in this case the store wanted them to leave?

At the time the cops showed up at Starbucks, there was plenty of doubt. The manager had not asked the men to leave. Even now in hindsight there's doubt Starbucks, the corporation and business owner, wanted the men removed from the premises. Starbucks has apologized profusely for the way their customers were treated. So yes, there was doubt that the owners of that business had declared the men to be trespassers. The men and the nearby customers had no clue why the cops were there. All of them were shocked that the cops were arresting the men for just sitting there waiting for their associate to arrive.

At the time the cops showed up at the Waffle House, there was doubt. The staff had not asked the women to leave. She thought they'd gone in back to get the phone number she requested so that she could lodge a complaint. In hindsight it looks like they did want her to leave but were too cowardly to actually tell her to her face. They wanted the cops to do it. But the cops did it wrong. They didn't issue a notice of trespass, they just went for the handcuffs.

 

[coloradoatheist]

For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.

 

[Arctish]

For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.

The notice doesn't have to be written but it must be official. It has to be something that can be filed as part of the documentation of the probable cause that led to the arrest. An informal chat with the manager is no substitute for a clear statement to the customers putting them on notice that staying on the property could lead to a misdemeanor charge and possible fine. Having it written down in the form of a citation is even better than delivering it verbally, and the cops certainly had enough time to do that.

The two men at the Starbucks were ordinary customers doing what a lot of customers do, waiting for someone to join them for coffee and a business meeting. People do that at Starbucks all the time. They don't suppose that they can be arrested for trespassing, because Starbucks wants them there. Starbucks is happy it's a meeting place for people engaged in those activities. Starbucks has gone out of it's way to promote its stores for exactly that sort of social activity. What happened there was extraordinary, unexpected, and shocking to customers who witnessed it.

The cops who responded to that call skipped over the part about needing justification for calling what the men were doing trespassing. They wound up arresting a couple of customers without probable cause. That should concern us all, but what concerns me here is the apparently widespread belief that the cops can haul us off to jail whenever they feel like it, and that cops do the bidding of business owners. They can't, and they shouldn't. They're supposed to uphold the law, and you can't do that if you're not following it.