coloradoatheist said:
Arctish said:
The notice of trespass must be given before they can arrest you for trespassing. First the horse, then the cart.
The police officer I watched could have made an arrest for trespassing if the people refused to leave once the notice had been presented to them, which he explained to them when he gave it to the guy who had invited in the others. The cop was very clear in his explanation of what it was, what it meant, and what they guy could do about it if he really did have a right to be there.
In the Starbucks case, it does not appear the men were given clear, unambiguous notice by the manager or the cops that they could be charged with trespassing if they remained in the store. The other customers who can be heard protesting the arrest don't seem at have heard any such thing. Without actual, express notice being given and therefore no possibility the men had disregarded a notice of trespass, there was no grounds for arresting them.
Except under section b(2) it iterates that it is a misdemeanor if the offender defies an order to leave after personally communicated to him by the owner or authorized person. It doesn't say, if it defies a notice of trespassing outlined in this X steps. It just says leave. So if the officer has a probable belief that the person was told to leave and didn't then they can arrest them for trespassing. Not only was there cause they believed the people were told, the also reiterated that that they needed to leave and they didn't. So yes they could have been charged with trespassing and upheld.
If it was just "he said, she said" that argument might fly. But in this case it was "she didn't actually say she said, they (the two men) said she didn't say, and they (multiple customers) confirmed she didn't say".
The law requires actual notice aka express notice. The person suspected of trespassing must have actual awareness or been given direct notification of a specific fact, demand, or claim. If there's any confusion as to whether actual notice was given, it wasn't.
Anyway, the cops are supposed to know the law better than a random coffee shop manager or the general public. They're supposed to know when they can make a lawful arrest, and when they can't. They could have given the notice of trespass themselves, just to make sure everybody was on the same page and understood the situation. But instead, they just put the two customers in handcuffs and hauled them away. That's a violation of civil rights and denial of civil liberties.
Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law unfortunately.
Did you miss the part of the statutes regarding defenses?
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(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.
That Starbucks was open for business. The men were customers. They weren't doing anything out of the ordinary. They were doing what hundreds? thousands? millions? of customers do every day. They had a reasonable belief that Starbucks, Inc. wanted them to have their business meetings over a coffee in a local Starbucks shop and didn't mind that they were politely waiting for their associate to join them.
They were
not told to leave the premises before the cops arrived. That point bears repeating so let me say it again, in red this time. They were
not told to leave before the cops arrived. They were not given any indication the manager was displeased with their presence. All indications are they were
not given actual notice of trespass. They should not have been arrested.
