Ignoring No Gun Sign=Trespassing

[Expat]

I am curious why kirk keeps saying POOOLLLEEECE, when everybody else is saying POLICE? which is the correct term????

Pretty sure it is PoPo.

 

[femurphy77]

 

[femurphy77]

For you I will say "la police".

Hunh? I always thought it was "La oh sheet!"

 

[Lex Concord]

I want to play.

What if a business has a sign at the sole entrance stating "No firearms allowed. Anyone found in possession of a firearm on the premises will be treated as a trespasser." ?

These do exist in the wild here.

 

[Lex Concord]

Pretty sure it is PoPo.

It's not five-oh?

 

[IndyGunworks]

learned me something new to day I did. Thanks for the info

 

[singlestacksig]

Why don't donkeys wear parachutes?

they do, My Wife's grand Father Air dropped them into Burma.

 

[TacticAll]

Throwing it out again...will it never end?

use the red one.

 

[HoughMade]

You can search MyCase by name as well.

I've decided to believe it. We have too little whimsy in our lives today.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The lifetime LTCH is going away.

 

[Fargo]

I want to play.

What if a business has a sign at the sole entrance stating "No firearms allowed. Anyone found in possession of a firearm on the premises will be treated as a trespasser." ?

These do exist in the wild here.

That may satisfy the statute. The relevant language in the code is "denied entry" so the sign would have to relay that. The use of the term "trespasser" is probably enough.

A simpler way is: "Any person carrying a firearm is prohibited from entering this establishment". If properly posted, that language would IMO satisfy the statute.

 

[DRob]

The lifetime LTCH is going away.

True. But only for the lifetime LTCH holders who also have a Facebook account.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I want to play.

What if a business has a sign at the sole entrance stating "No firearms allowed. Anyone found in possession of a firearm on the premises will be treated as a trespasser." ?

These do exist in the wild here.

next step is proving the offender saw and read the sign. Without that proof I don't think it passes muster. (IANAL)

now if it was a private club and the rule was in the membership packet and you had to sign agreeing to the terms and initial next to that line, MAYBE. (Or get the guy to admit that he read it and didn't care)

 

[Lex Concord]

That may satisfy the statute. The relevant language in the code is "denied entry" so the sign would have to relay that. The use of the term "trespasser" is probably enough.

A simpler way is: "Any person carrying a firearm is prohibited from entering this establishment". If properly posted, that language would IMO satisfy the statute.

I must admit I was paraphrasing. I'll have to go back and snap a photo sometime...hopefully not too soon, though.

 

[Lex Concord]

next step is proving the offender saw and read the sign. Without that proof I don't think it passes muster. (IANAL)

now if it was a private club and the rule was in the membership packet and you had to sign agreeing to the terms and initial next to that line, MAYBE. (Or get the guy to admit that he read it and didn't care)

The sign would be hard to miss by a sighted person. That said, your point is well taken.

 

[jbombelli]

The sign would be hard to miss by a sighted person. That said, your point is well taken.

A lot of people these days obliviously walk along with their faces stuck in their phones. Not hard to imagine someone not seeing a sign.

 

[Lex Concord]

A lot of people these days obliviously walk along with their faces stuck in their phones. Not hard to imagine someone not seeing a sign.

Quite true. The sign is in a small vestibule with heavy doors...if someone held the door for you, it could happen.

That said, I don't know that proof of an individual having seen the sign is relevant here. The IC in question states, regarding criminal trespass:

"A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) ofthis section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a
manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the
attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC"

I think the questions are 1) Would the sign qualify as a trespassing sign? and, if so, 2) is the sign "likely to come to the attention of the public"

 

[Cameramonkey]

Quite true. The sign is in a small vestibule with heavy doors...if someone held the door for you, it could happen.

That said, I don't know that proof of an individual having seen the sign is relevant here. The IC in question states, regarding criminal trespass:

"A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) ofthis section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a
manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the
attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC"

I think the questions are 1) Would the sign qualify as a trespassing sign? and, if so, 2) is the sign "likely to come to the attention of the public"

These days, only if the sign can either text the visitor's cell phone or deliver the text of the sign wrapped around a hammer delivered to their forhead as they approach the door. Short of that, In today's society, they wont see it.

I still think its unlikely as a sign without positive feedback that it has been seen and acknowleged wont stick. Same reason things are sent registered mail, or delivered by a deputy. No positive confirmation, plausible deniability.

 

[Fargo]

Quite true. The sign is in a small vestibule with heavy doors...if someone held the door for you, it could happen.

That said, I don't know that proof of an individual having seen the sign is relevant here. The IC in question states, regarding criminal trespass:

"A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) ofthis section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a
manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the
attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC"

I think the questions are 1) Would the sign qualify as a trespassing sign? and, if so, 2) is the sign "likely to come to the attention of the public"

Indiana's Crim Trespass statute has an inherent contradiction in it which I don't know has been resolved in the caselaw. The mens rea for the statute is "knowingly or intentionally" yet the definition of "denied entry" seems to imply it can be negligent or even strict liability completely without knowledge.

A general principle of criminal law is that any non- malum in se law requires a mens read of at least recklessness. I seem to recall that this has been held to be a federal constitutional requirement. I am dubious that Indiana's definition of "denied entry" is actually constitutional as it does not even require that all public entrances be posted. Additionally, there is ample Indiana caselaw that mens rea applies to all elements of a crime.

As such, I am skeptical that a conviction for criminal trespass can be sustained without proof of actual knowledge of denial of entry. That is not to say, that knowledge won't be inferrable if you walk past a big sign, but that is a horse of a different color from what the statute now says. I will have to see if there is any caselaw on it next time I get the chance.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I want to play.

What if a business has a sign at the sole entrance stating "No firearms allowed. Anyone found in possession of a firearm on the premises will be treated as a trespasser." ?

These do exist in the wild here.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/334126-escorted-out-glenbrook-mall.html
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/58317-you-going-jail.html