coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Can you please cite case law defending your position that it must be official and what defines official?
-
Features
#BlackinAmerica
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
Can you please cite case law defending your position that it must be official and what defines official?
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Title 18
The statutes refer to actual notice:
If there was any uncertainty about whether the two customers were given a notice of trespass, then the cops and the manager didn't do it right. The law requires a direct communication of fact. And if a customer reasonably believes that Starbucks wants him to make their coffee shop a place to meet with associates to conduct business, then that is a defense against the allegation he was trespassing.
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,063
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
As a nitpick, Starbucks is almost certainly not the owner of that property.
I think you're confusing the situation here. A trespass notice means they can immediately arrest you for being on the property in the future.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
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.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
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. Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law unfortunately.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
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.
Did you miss the part of the statutes regarding defenses?
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.
I keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm not sure where the breakdown in communication is happening. Is there really any confusion over the fact that American citizens have civil rights and civil liberties, and that the police aren't allowed to deny or interfere with them unless conditions specified by law and statute are met? Or is the breakdown over what constitutes actual notice? Perhaps there's some confusion as to whether the manager told the men to leave before or after calling the cops.
What exactly is the point in dispute here?
laughing dog
Contributor
The issue is that for some conservatives and some erstwhile "libertarians", the property rights of businesses and/or the "authority" of the police trump civil rights. Hence the facts of these cases really don't matter: the police must be OBEYED no matter what, and the property rights of the business must be UPHELD no matter what.
And note that by asking the cop to get them out of there the cop temporarily becomes an authorized person. Thus the cop saying that they have been asked to leave is enough--if they don't leave it's trespassing.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Of course police are there to protect property rights. And there is no legal requirement that a restaurant must provide facilities (bathroom, table seating) for non customers.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
So there are several disputes here.
1) Your reading of the statue, specifically calling out that the person must be aware that they are "trespassing" and not just just the direct reading of the statue which says, asked to leave.
2) You just brought up the claim they were customers. What did the buy at the Starbucks?
3) There was a civil right issue here. That is not the case here. You don't have rights to use a facility at a restaurant where you haven't bought anything.
4) It was when the cops arrived and told them to leave and they did not leave, that was when they were now guilty of trespassing and could be arrested for it.
For fuck's sake Derec!!!! Blaming the victims AGAIN!!!!!!!
I don't even fucking play golf, and I know damned well that the group behind can asked to "play through" if the group in front is going slower. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER how long these women were at any particular hole.
Furthermore, according to the articles I read on this incident, the group behind HAD NOT EVEN STARTED PLAYING YET!
Are you TRYING to show everyone that you are a racist and/or misogynist?
Did they even tell her she was under arrest?
Technically, you are both correct. The police DO have to have a valid reason ("probable cause") to arrest her, but they do NOT have to tell her what that reason is... which I think is majorly fucked up, and something that should be changed nationwide. Not being required to state the reason for the arrest gives way too much leeway for the cops to just make something up later (or plant evidence).
The police DO have to tell her that she is under arrest, though - and I am not sure they did here.
no it is not
"Charges" are not the same thing as "probable cause to arrest"
- - - Updated - - -
So Derec makes up an absolute bullshit story that she was drunk, and you make up an absolute bullshit story that there had been a previous "run-in"
Anything to blame the victim
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Wrong. First, Starbucks is not a restaurant but a cafe. If you're talking Waffle House, that's a restaurant but management did not ask her to leave. So still wrong. Second, your tense is wrong. You don't have to have bought something in the past as you may pay after your order. But that isn't right either. If I go to a restaurant with my 10 year old he isn't buying anything, I am. So he doesn't have to pay. In fact, if I go to a restaurant with a baby, they might not eat. If I go with a date, they might drink water, not pay and then walk out in a tiff after using the bathroom. IN THEORY. I am married and my wife would never do that. Now if my lawyer told me to meet him at a hotel cafe for a business meeting, one of us would buy a drink. But I might get there first and wait 20 minutes and when he gets there he may order a drink and ask what I want, and I may say nothing, or water or something else. Or someone may come in, look at the menu and then leave.
These situations are real and not captured by your hard, fast generalization. That's because you are very wrong. The REAL fact is that businesses put out a thing called a sign. It's typically a paper or lights with 4 letters: O P E N. When a cafe is OPEN for business an individual or a collective can just walk in. There may be other signs to inform them about unusual rules, like bathrooms not for public use, no shirt no shoes no service, and $100 bills not accepted. People are welcome to look around for a very long time and leave without buying anything.
Now POTENTIAL customers are wecome as either individuals or a collective. Another example of a collective: A school bus may stop at a McDonald's on a highway. The students may use the bathrooms. 90% may get meals and pay themselves. Not everyone who used the bathroom may have bought a meal, especially in the past. Another example: a whole family may come in but see things are too pricey and leave.
Of course, the idea of a collective customer may create some ambiguity. So, for example, a party of 20 walks into chilis. One guy buys a soda, the rest order waters. Technically works but not really acceptable, by social convention and management hoping for profit. BUT for coffeehouses, the conventions are very loose. Political groups, bands, d&d meetups happen there. And very often a minority of the group is purchasing things.
In the case of the two black men at Starbucks, they were potential customers but moreover they were part of a group that had not fully arrived yet which itself was a potential customer. So after the 3rd member of the group arrived he may have bought a frappucino and maybe that is why he set the meeting up there. After that, one of the others may have said, "oh that looks good. I'm going to get one too." All of this was acceptable for a cafe.
Likewise, the woman in the Waffle House was still a potential customer because they had not asked her to leave. She was technically still in a process of negotiation. That is, after calling the district manager, he could have told his employees they were wrong and to exempt her or she could have changed her mind after going as high up the chain as she could and then paid that extra price after he confirmed it was valid.
Neither she nor the group deserved special negative treatment by police involvement while they remained potential customers.
laughing dog
Contributor
And civil rights. But those don't count for some "libertarians".
What prompted that koan? And before you answer, you are aware that the Philadelphia police did not charge either man with any crime.
fast
Contributor
I'm gonna take a stab at this trespassing issue. I'm not in any way trying to take sides. I just want to throw out some thoughts and see where it gets me.
First, this reminds me of the difference in what's considered kidnapping between everyday normal lexical usage and stipulative legal usage. If I stand in one's way as one tries to exit a building, while no sane individual would consider that kidnapping by old school usage, there may very well be extended conditions considered in law which creates the divide between what is and what is not kidnapping. I bring this up because there is (I believe) a parallel on the trespassing discussion. What is or is not trespassing in common usage may indeed vary from what is or is not trespassing in legal parlance. Further, there is a meshing between the two in common circulation which compounds the need to hash out whatever differences brought up for discussion.
Second, I'd like to focus in on the distinction between entering and remaining. Entering my own personal property without permission is trespassing. Without notice or with notice. With signage or without signage. If you are a friend and you have been given implicit or explicit consent to enter, then you are not trespassing. If you enter with my permission and we later argue and I ask you to leave but you remain, then despite the fact you are now unwelcome, it's not true that you entered without permission. Odd and strange perhaps, but the difference is important.
On the legal side of the equation, the scope seems to have engulfed remaining without permission as being covered under the umbrella that extends beyond the ordinary reach of common layman views--although as I hinted to before, the fusion between the common definition and legal definition has bred evolving commonly held thoughts in the matter.
Third, a personal residence is substantively different than a brick and mortar business that is open to the public. There is implicit permission to enter if not a downright open sign explicitly inviting customers--which is broad enough to include even non-paying customers.
If a customer or potential customer enters a business, we must remember the before-mentioned distinction between entering and remaining. Whether for racist reasons or not, if customers or potential customers are asked to leave but remain, that does not alter the fact they failed to enter with permission: it's open to the public.
Now, if a customer is asked to leave but refuses, then even if he refuses to leave and instead remains, the issue becomes not what "trespassing" means but rather what 'tresspassing' means, where the double quote signifies lexical usage and the single quote signifies legal meaning.
At this juncture, any use of the word trespassing will be legal usage.
What is the legal definition? That is important. What's right or wrong isn't important, as that would only speak to the ethics of the issue. So, if trespassing includes entering without permission, that element is irrelevant since a few examples discussed in this thread seem to include permission of entry. However, that's not to say the sequence of legal procedures is relevant either, for the issue isn't about methodology but actual trespassing.
Food for thought. Compartmentalize and hold emotions at bay. If one is not asked to leave, then they either are or not nevertheless trespassing despite that--unless that happens to be integral as a necessary condition for satisfying the legal definition of trespassing.
Wording becomes crucial. For example, suppose being on a property after being asked to leave is the operative word. Then, entering and not leaving would constitute trespassing. For instance, suppose the legal definition didn't have being but entering was crucial. How in the heck would that be trespassing--since entering was a-okay at the time.
The exact wording is important to ascertain the factual basis. Thinking about what's right or wrong and who would like this or that or whether racism was or wasn't involved all take a back seat if there is a singular endeavor to determine whether one was or wasn't trespassing.
First, this reminds me of the difference in what's considered kidnapping between everyday normal lexical usage and stipulative legal usage. If I stand in one's way as one tries to exit a building, while no sane individual would consider that kidnapping by old school usage, there may very well be extended conditions considered in law which creates the divide between what is and what is not kidnapping. I bring this up because there is (I believe) a parallel on the trespassing discussion. What is or is not trespassing in common usage may indeed vary from what is or is not trespassing in legal parlance. Further, there is a meshing between the two in common circulation which compounds the need to hash out whatever differences brought up for discussion.
Second, I'd like to focus in on the distinction between entering and remaining. Entering my own personal property without permission is trespassing. Without notice or with notice. With signage or without signage. If you are a friend and you have been given implicit or explicit consent to enter, then you are not trespassing. If you enter with my permission and we later argue and I ask you to leave but you remain, then despite the fact you are now unwelcome, it's not true that you entered without permission. Odd and strange perhaps, but the difference is important.
On the legal side of the equation, the scope seems to have engulfed remaining without permission as being covered under the umbrella that extends beyond the ordinary reach of common layman views--although as I hinted to before, the fusion between the common definition and legal definition has bred evolving commonly held thoughts in the matter.
Third, a personal residence is substantively different than a brick and mortar business that is open to the public. There is implicit permission to enter if not a downright open sign explicitly inviting customers--which is broad enough to include even non-paying customers.
If a customer or potential customer enters a business, we must remember the before-mentioned distinction between entering and remaining. Whether for racist reasons or not, if customers or potential customers are asked to leave but remain, that does not alter the fact they failed to enter with permission: it's open to the public.
Now, if a customer is asked to leave but refuses, then even if he refuses to leave and instead remains, the issue becomes not what "trespassing" means but rather what 'tresspassing' means, where the double quote signifies lexical usage and the single quote signifies legal meaning.
At this juncture, any use of the word trespassing will be legal usage.
What is the legal definition? That is important. What's right or wrong isn't important, as that would only speak to the ethics of the issue. So, if trespassing includes entering without permission, that element is irrelevant since a few examples discussed in this thread seem to include permission of entry. However, that's not to say the sequence of legal procedures is relevant either, for the issue isn't about methodology but actual trespassing.
Food for thought. Compartmentalize and hold emotions at bay. If one is not asked to leave, then they either are or not nevertheless trespassing despite that--unless that happens to be integral as a necessary condition for satisfying the legal definition of trespassing.
Wording becomes crucial. For example, suppose being on a property after being asked to leave is the operative word. Then, entering and not leaving would constitute trespassing. For instance, suppose the legal definition didn't have being but entering was crucial. How in the heck would that be trespassing--since entering was a-okay at the time.
The exact wording is important to ascertain the factual basis. Thinking about what's right or wrong and who would like this or that or whether racism was or wasn't involved all take a back seat if there is a singular endeavor to determine whether one was or wasn't trespassing.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
The issue fast is that there is a lot of time where you don't need to know the exact legal definition of what we can do and why and there are times with laws where we think we know the law but don't know the exact wording.
We discussed this a little in the United case, but there are several definitions regarding property.
The first one is a lease. This is a temporary time defined transfer of property. The leasee gets to do things like they own the property with some restrictions for the time frame agreed upon by the owner. Starbucks probably had a a lease for that store, so they legally they have the property and have the privileges and rights for that time frame.
The second is called a license. This is the one less known, but it's what gives you the right to go into the Starbucks store implicitly. If a a place is considered public then everyone has an implicit license during the time frame that's it's open. What we are arguing about is when that implicit license can be taken away and how it's communicated that the license is removed. The difference between a license and a lease is that a license can be removed at any time. So if the case of where you want to long term remove that license from someone entering the property you need to place signs where the person can see it and know that license has been removed from them. But the second case here is where you can temporarily remove that license by informing them they no longer have a license, and that statue of Pennsylvania which would apply says the owner or the authorized person for the owner communicates it to the person.
Trespassing is easy and people are trying to complicate it when it's not.
- - - Updated - - -
They didn't have to charge them with a crime. They could have though and Starbucks was the one who refused to press charges.
The civil right question would be were the refused to be provided a service that they wanted to pay for and do. And the answer is no, Starbucks tried to offer them the service of the establishment and they said no.
We discussed this a little in the United case, but there are several definitions regarding property.
The first one is a lease. This is a temporary time defined transfer of property. The leasee gets to do things like they own the property with some restrictions for the time frame agreed upon by the owner. Starbucks probably had a a lease for that store, so they legally they have the property and have the privileges and rights for that time frame.
The second is called a license. This is the one less known, but it's what gives you the right to go into the Starbucks store implicitly. If a a place is considered public then everyone has an implicit license during the time frame that's it's open. What we are arguing about is when that implicit license can be taken away and how it's communicated that the license is removed. The difference between a license and a lease is that a license can be removed at any time. So if the case of where you want to long term remove that license from someone entering the property you need to place signs where the person can see it and know that license has been removed from them. But the second case here is where you can temporarily remove that license by informing them they no longer have a license, and that statue of Pennsylvania which would apply says the owner or the authorized person for the owner communicates it to the person.
Trespassing is easy and people are trying to complicate it when it's not.
- - - Updated - - -
They didn't have to charge them with a crime. They could have though and Starbucks was the one who refused to press charges.
The civil right question would be were the refused to be provided a service that they wanted to pay for and do. And the answer is no, Starbucks tried to offer them the service of the establishment and they said no.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Don, not to quote your whole thread
It is a minor difference between cafe and restaurant. Both are public places and their service is providing food and allowing their customers to sit at the tables to enjoy that product. Because a place is public does not mean that everything goes. If you walked into a bedroom store and went to sleep on the coach they would ask you to leave. You can't go into a Chilis with a please wait to be seated sign and just decide to sit at any open table. Restaurants also have different policies regarding seating full parties.
I am just referring to just the Starbucks case here for the trespassing.
The collective group would be a little more interesting because if you had a party of 20 and only 4 were eating, they would not be required to arrange the tables for 20 people in that case.
It is a minor difference between cafe and restaurant. Both are public places and their service is providing food and allowing their customers to sit at the tables to enjoy that product. Because a place is public does not mean that everything goes. If you walked into a bedroom store and went to sleep on the coach they would ask you to leave. You can't go into a Chilis with a please wait to be seated sign and just decide to sit at any open table. Restaurants also have different policies regarding seating full parties.
I am just referring to just the Starbucks case here for the trespassing.
The collective group would be a little more interesting because if you had a party of 20 and only 4 were eating, they would not be required to arrange the tables for 20 people in that case.