New Procedures at huntington bank

[Hammerhead]

Hammerhead, I was the person locked in an Indiana National Bank door trap and posted it up. One of the things the LEO chewed the manager about was that they had nothing posted saying it was against that banks rules to legally carry on their property. If it had been posted then I could have been cited for trespass.
When you step on private property you are agreeing to abide by the rules of the owner. Its just like buying a ticket to a sporting event, you agree to abide by their rules or you agree to leave or you agree to be arrested.

You can say signage doesn't mean anything, right up until they cuff and stuff you if you don't abide by the rules that an owner of private property has. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to everyone on public property the same and no government can change that. They stop at private property. You don't have the right to carry on someones private property. You don't have the right to peaceful assembly on someones private property. You don't have the right to religion on someones private property. You don't have the right to freedom of speech on someones private property. They can grant you permission or deny permission for any or all.

If any of that was false, then it wouldn't be possible to cite for trespass.

Your final statement is true. It is then a trespass issue. Not a carry issue. They must request you leave, not lock you in before you are informed. As has been proven and discussed at length in several other threads, no carry signs do not constitute prior knowledge and a business owner or his agent (employee) must ask you to leave, and if you do not, it is trespass. They can't stop you from carrying other than that, even with stupid company policy.

 

[finity]

Correct me if I am wrong...

Guy is customer at bank.

Bank changes policy.

Guy does not like new policy.

Guy changes banks.


Bottom line, there should be no law or rule that forces a company to do something... they should be allowed to do as they will, if their practices are not enjoyable to you, then take your business elsewhere.

This is not a 2nd amendment violation, this is a matter of a private company modifying its policy.

If you carry a gun and want to do business with a bank that lets you do so, take your business there. If this causes the bank to lose enough business they will change their policy or die.... lesson learned.

If you disagree, that is fine but freedom is not just something we use when we like it... its a two way street and the bank has every right to do what it is doing....

I was with you right up that last sentence.

The door locking you in is a security measure,

No. The door locking you OUT would be a security measure. The door locking you IN is a violation of law.

you have violated their policy and you are possible threat, a secure facility has every right to detain you in this situation, should they?

Thats not what I am saying here... there is sharp difference in a secure facility and a non-secure facility as far as weapons are concerned.

What is this "secure facility" thing you keep speaking of? It's a business. No more, no less. Just because they are a bank doesn't mean they are deserving of any more or less security than your local convenience store. I'd venture to say that more convenence stores get robbed than banks. Why care more if a bank is robbed than a convenience store? Banks are usually more well insured than mom & pop convenience stores. Would you be OK with the clerk at a convenience store holding you at gun point if you simply shopped there with a gun on you?

Oh, that's right. A bank is a "secure facility".

Violating a posted policy in a secured facility is cause to be detained, was a law broken by either side? No

Umm...I'd say the only law broken was by the bank.

So let's ignore this contrived "secure facility" entity for the time being. Should Kroger be able to "detain" you of you decide to enter with no shoes. I mean isn't the reason for the POLICY for the safety of other customers from food-borne illnesses? Obviously you're a "threat" in some form.

If the sign werent posted, and the building were not a secure private facility I would say it is over kill and illegal... but it's not there is proper notice and a law abiding citizen has no reason to worry....

Actually they do.

A LAW-abiding citizen (meaning a private person who has broken no LAW) has the worry that they will be illegally detained by a business that has no AUTHORITY to do so.

Which brings me to my next point.

A company has no "rights". A private person has rights. A business owner has rights. Citizens Arrest is not a "right". It is a statutorily defined authority.

A private security force has the right to detain someone in a secure facility in order to maintain peace... I think.

I am not saying they should or shouldn't... but you can protect your property and the rules in place.... I think.

Where is this written? Citizens arrest is written into the IC. Also, trespassing is a misdemeanor so the citizens arrest statute has no bearing on that act.

Are you saying that a lawfully owned & carried firearm is a "breach of the peace"? If so then I think you'd fit right in with the police force in Wisconsin.

You can protect your property. From theft, vandalism, etc. If you invite someone to your house & they subsequently violate a rule (i.e. no smoking) you can certainly ask them to leave but you can't "detain" them for trespassing.

Correct, trespassing would be the appropriat violation...

No. As I mentioned above, tresspassing isn't included in the requirements for a "citizens arrest" as the IC you quoted previously clearly shows.

A citizens arrest requires a FELONY be committed. Trespassing is not a FELONY (except under VERY limited circumstances) so a citizens arrest is not legal.

Please correct me here, but it Huntington's bank has every right to allow their security to detain you in this situation and, in my opinion they are doing everything by the book..

I guess it depends on who's "book" you're referring to.

Its not a 2nd Amendment fight, period. Any place of business has the right to produce rules and enforce rules if you want to do business with them. Any place of business has the right to employ people to secure said place of business and enforce said rules.

Agreed. They can enforce their RULES by asking you to leave. They can secure their business by detaining you for a violation of LAW. There's a HUGE difference.

If it is posted that firearms are not allowed on property and you proceed on property, said security people can detain you to discover your intentions.

No they can't. All they can do is ask you to leave. Well, I guess they could ask you why you have a gun on you but they can't DETAIN you to do it. IF you refuse to answer they can ONLY ask you to leave. If you don't leave then they can call the police. They still can't DETAIN you for refusing to leave.

Seriously. Where does it say that a business can detain anyone that is not in violation of a LAW? A company RULE is not a LAW no matter how many times you try to say that it is.

Once that has been done said security person can either release you after informing you verbally you can't enter with a firearm, or they can detain you, call the police, and swear a trespass warrant against you.

So let me understand here. You don't want someone on your property with a firearm. You haven't actually TOLD them to leave. But now you're going to force them to stay on your property with said firearm.

It can be a felony to carry without a license (and by "without a license", I mean "you've never been issued one", not "left it at home"). Depending on the circumstances, it's either a B-Misdemeanor or a C-Felony. Having a license is an affirmative defense against the charge of carrying a firearm without a license.

I think I know what you're saying but it sounds like you may be agreeing or at least lending support to those who think it's OK for a private person to detain someone for a rule violation.

Also, using this line of thinking we could have a rash of citizens arrests of people who carry because a possible felony has been committed in the arresting citizens presence.

I, as a private person, do not have the authority to ask to see a LTCH or arrest someone for a "felony" if refused.

I'm sure that's not what you are implying. I just wanted to make that clear to our resident corporate police force supporters.

 

[clgustaveson]

I was with you right up that last sentence.



No. The door locking you OUT would be a security measure. The door locking you IN is a violation of law.



What is this "secure facility" thing you keep speaking of? It's a business. No more, no less. Just because they are a bank doesn't mean they are deserving of any more or less security than your local convenience store. I'd venture to say that more convenence stores get robbed than banks. Why care more if a bank is robbed than a convenience store? Banks are usually more well insured than mom & pop convenience stores. Would you be OK with the clerk at a convenience store holding you at gun point if you simply shopped there with a gun on you?

Oh, that's right. A bank is a "secure facility".




Umm...I'd say the only law broken was by the bank.

So let's ignore this contrived "secure facility" entity for the time being. Should Kroger be able to "detain" you of you decide to enter with no shoes. I mean isn't the reason for the POLICY for the safety of other customers from food-borne illnesses? Obviously you're a "threat" in some form.



Actually they do.

A LAW-abiding citizen (meaning a private person who has broken no LAW) has the worry that they will be illegally detained by a business that has no AUTHORITY to do so.

Which brings me to my next point.

A company has no "rights". A private person has rights. A business owner has rights. Citizens Arrest is not a "right". It is a statutorily defined authority.



Where is this written? Citizens arrest is written into the IC. Also, trespassing is a misdemeanor so the citizens arrest statute has no bearing on that act.

Are you saying that a lawfully owned & carried firearm is a "breach of the peace"? If so then I think you'd fit right in with the police force in Wisconsin.

You can protect your property. From theft, vandalism, etc. If you invite someone to your house & they subsequently violate a rule (i.e. no smoking) you can certainly ask them to leave but you can't "detain" them for trespassing.




No. As I mentioned above, tresspassing isn't included in the requirements for a "citizens arrest" as the IC you quoted previously clearly shows.

A citizens arrest requires a FELONY be committed. Trespassing is not a FELONY (except under VERY limited circumstances) so a citizens arrest is not legal.



I guess it depends on who's "book" you're referring to.



Agreed. They can enforce their RULES by asking you to leave. They can secure their business by detaining you for a violation of LAW. There's a HUGE difference.



No they can't. All they can do is ask you to leave. Well, I guess they could ask you why you have a gun on you but they can't DETAIN you to do it. IF you refuse to answer they can ONLY ask you to leave. If you don't leave then they can call the police. They still can't DETAIN you for refusing to leave.

Seriously. Where does it say that a business can detain anyone that is not in violation of a LAW? A company RULE is not a LAW no matter how many times you try to say that it is.



So let me understand here. You don't want someone on your property with a firearm. You haven't actually TOLD them to leave. But now you're going to force them to stay on your property with said firearm.



I think I know what you're saying but it sounds like you may be agreeing or at least lending support to those who think it's OK for a private person to detain someone for a rule violation.

Also, using this line of thinking we could have a rash of citizens arrests of people who carry because a possible felony has been committed in the arresting citizens presence.

I, as a private person, do not have the authority to ask to see a LTCH or arrest someone for a "felony" if refused.

I'm sure that's not what you are implying. I just wanted to make that clear to our resident corporate police force supporters.

I am not going to waste my time making this look pretty, I tried to drop this because I don't have the time to waste arguing with people on the internet over the theory of law.

Let me explain this and try to show you why, the property owener has every right to consider your breach of the first door as trespassing. It is correct that under Indiana IC 35-43-2 there are subsections that include the requirement of a request to leave the premises. However, this not the sole requirement.

And yes, carrying a gun into a duly posted public place can be construed as a misdomeaner involving a breach of peace because a reasonble person of sound mind would not behave in such manor.A citizen's arrest most certainly does not require a "FELONY" be commited, I posted the law, please read it, you may do so in cases of a misdomeaner when a breach of peace is evident. The situation here is very clear... don't violate the rights of the property owner, take your business elswhere.

Here is the relevant information from the IC 35-43-2:

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and (B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this 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 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

Please review case law, a posted sign denying selective entrance has precident in Indiana. A sign is NOT prior knowledge but a sign is means to deny an individual entrance. By continuing you are violating IC 35-43-2 by entering after being denied entrance.

The sign is NOT law and is NOT the violation you would be found guilty of.

Again, I do not agree with the law, but the precident is there and has been upheld in court.

Now, a bunch of people sitting on a forum arguing over "the law" means squat. You can act like you know what you are talking about but there are two classes of people being protected here, the property owner and the gun owner.

Now, anything you say is correct have a good day.

 

[kevman65]

Original post, "There was a sign prior to entering stating those with weapons will not be allowed entrance" That in itself is a written policy of the owner of the property. Just like "No Trespassing" on your private property, ignore one then ignore both.

I agree everyone has their personal rights, on public property, again when you enter private property they are no longer rights but permissions. If it is posted you do not have permission then you are in violation of trespass, just as if you walked past "No Trespassing" signs on someones property and started hunting, there is no difference.

 

[Hammerhead]

A "No Firearms" sign does not equate a trespass warning. This has been established in other threads discussing this exact topic, specifically by a practicing attorney citing the code correctly and providing case law. Search for the Church's Chicken thread.

Posting a "no firearms" sign is equivalent to posting a "no purple shirts" sign. It is not notice of trespass. A "no trespassing" sign is notice of trespass. You may be denied service, asked to leave, or given the stink-eye for carrying into a location not prohibited by law, but you are not required to follow a "company policy". Company policy does not trump the law. You are required to be notified of the trespass and refuse to leave before you can be charged with it.

Wal-mart, Best Buy, and many other retailers have company policies that you may be asked to show your receipt and submit to a search of your belongings before you leave the building. This is a company policy and you are not legally required to follow it, you can tell them to go fornicate themselves, and leave the property. They may harass you, attempt to cajole you, or even attempt to yell at you while following you into the parking lot. But you do not have to submit to their search of your purchased property. They might even place signs up in their stores informing you of this policy. You still do not have to submit. It is a company policy, and holds no weight of law. Signage stating company policy does not trump any law.

However, I know some people may state the exception for Sam's Club, or other warehouse stores. This is different, and you are required to submit to the receipt check and search as an agreement of membership. However, unless also stated in the agreement of membership that firearms are not to be carried into these stores, even signage stating no firearms at these stores hold no weight of law in IN.

The reason the IC posted above does not apply to signage stating "no insert object here" is because carrying whatever object they wish to deny is not a trespass issue. That code specifically speaks of trespass, not the carrying of objects they wish you wouldn't carry.

Possessing objects they really wish you wouldn't on their property isn't a crime, not a misdemeanor, not a felony, not an infraction, not an offense, nothing. It's a request. They can't demand you not possess your property, they can only ask pretty please that you comply. Even if their signage takes a demanding or authoritative tone. They can't make you leave your kitchen sink in your car. They can't make you leave your left sock in your car. They can't make you leave your sidearm in your car. They can make you leave.

However, as this thread topic states, Huntington Bank specifically wasn't asking that you leave, or making you leave, just the opposite. They're making you stay, against your will, in their little security locked vestibule. They're holding you in violation of the law by not allowing you to leave of your own volition. They imprison you illegally by locking both the outside and inside door and demanding that you comply with their policies before they'll release you. Not only that, but I guarantee that they're not applying these tactics equally. They won't lock a LEO in for carrying a weapon, even though their sign may state that persons with weapons won't be admitted. If their policies were equal to law, this would not be allowed to happen, as no person, LEO or citizen would be admitted.

You go ahead and believe that not following posted policy equals committing a crime. I'll not be giving up my rights or my property just because a sign "demands" it.

 

[clgustaveson]

A "No Guns" sign is not what were talking about here...

Please read the thread and understand that a sign prohibiting an object is sharply different than a sign prohibiting entry if the object is in possession.

Have a good day

 

[finity]

A "No Guns" sign is not what were talking about here...

Please read the thread and understand that a sign prohibiting an object is sharply different than a sign prohibiting entry if the object is in possession.

Have a good day

So you still contend that if there was a sign that said "no entry allowed if in the possession of a banana" & a person had a banana in their pocket that they would immediately be arrested for trespassing by a LEO (after being first forcibly detained by the establishments owners or agents) without first being asked to leave? And that it would constitute a "breach of the peace"? Or is that only for guns in your so-called "secure facility"?

 

[pig957]

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;

If a person, who is a customer, enters the bank, then I believe they have a contractual interest in the property and would not be in vilolation of this code.

 

[singlestacksig]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07060707pdm.pdf

"Our supreme court has stated that violence, either actual or threatened, is an essential element of breaching the peace."


"We believe that the element of communication of denial of entry or request to leave necessarily implies a reasonable period of time for the person receiving that communication to leave of her/his own volition. Mishler did not give Lemon such a reasonable period of time to comply, and therefore, in our view, no trespass occurred."

 

[ATM]

"Excuse me sir, is that a banana in your pocket?"

 

[singlestacksig]

If a person, who is a customer, enters the bank, then I believe they have a contractual interest in the property and would not be in vilolation of this code.

it would have to be contract intrest in the plot of land or building.. or maybe a safe deposit box.. not just having an account with that bank..
even if you are a shareholder , part owner, you can not just go onto company property..

 

[finity]

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;

If a person, who is a customer, enters the bank, then I believe they have a contractual interest in the property and would not be in vilolation of this code.

I don't think the person being a customer would be a "contractual interest". I take that to mean a sort of lease, written or verbal agreement or, obviously, co-ownership.

ETA: Darn. singlestacksig beat me to it.

I still don't agree that a "no guns", "no bananas" or a "no persons in possession of guns or bananas" sign constitutes communication to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON of denial of entry. A general "no trespassing" sign that keeps everyone out without prior permission would be. Or a "joe blow keep out" sign would also be enough that joe can't enter.

If anyone that thinks otherwise would be so kind as to post the case law that supposedly exists that purports to support their position then this could be quickly & easily resolved. I'd really like to see it. I have no problem being PROVEN wrong & I like to learn new things especially where the law is concerned.

 

[finity]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07060707pdm.pdf

"Our supreme court has stated that violence, either actual or threatened, is an essential element of breaching the peace."

Thanks. I guess that puts the kabosh (sp?) to the idea that just the lawful carrying of a gun onto a posted property is a "breach of the peace".

 

[clgustaveson]

So you still contend that if there was a sign that said "no entry allowed if in the possession of a banana" & a person had a banana in their pocket that they would immediately be arrested for trespassing by a LEO (after being first forcibly detained by the establishments owners or agents) without first being asked to leave? And that it would constitute a "breach of the peace"? Or is that only for guns in your so-called "secure facility"?

No, they would not "immediately" be arrested for trespassing by LEO....

Indiana has time- and time again found that the implied threat of violence constitutes a breach of peace.

Read the link in single stacks post.

A bannana would be a violation of the trespassing code, however it would not consitute a breach of peace and would then not be a viable reason to detain somebody under Indiana code.

There are a few things that make a bannana an unrealistic comparrison. First of all it is unlikely that a person would be able to determine this violation without violating the person right to privacy or without causing them unreasonable harm.

A gun, and most weapons can be realized through the means of an un-obtrusive metal detector and does not violate the persons right. (again we are not talking about the constitution because this is a private company, the constitution protects you against unreasonable search and seizure from a government authority).

If you carry a gun, into a building that has noted you may not enter with a weapon, and you do enter: You are 1: Trespassing 2: Creating an implied threat 3: Breaching Peace.

A sign stating "No Weapons" is rather ambiguous and is thus not sufficient without being asked to leave the property. A sign telling you that you may not enter with this item, is not ambiguous and is thus "Reasonable" if posted on all public entrances.

Please feel free to respond with another ludicris example if you like. The point is that they have the legal ability to do what they are doing. The point is not that I agree with it.

 

[eldirector]

What this "implied threat" and "breach of peace". This is the first time I have seen these terms.

 

[clgustaveson]

Thanks. I guess that puts the kabosh (sp?) to the idea that just the lawful carrying of a gun onto a posted property is a "breach of the peace".

No, trespassing on private property with a gun would cause a reasonable person to perceive an implied threat.

If I had a sign on my property indicating the such, and you came into my home with a gun (passing through my residential metal detectors) it would be reasonable for me to believe your intentions were not peaceful.

 

[clgustaveson]

What this "implied threat" and "breach of peace". This is the first time I have seen these terms.

 

[singlestacksig]

I don't think the person being a customer would be a "contractual interest". I take that to mean a sort of lease, written or verbal agreement or, obviously, co-ownership.

ETA: Darn. singlestacksig beat me to it.

I still don't agree that a "no guns", "no bananas" or a "no persons in possession of guns or bananas" sign constitutes communication to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON of denial of entry. A general "no trespassing" sign that keeps everyone out without prior permission would be. Or a "joe blow keep out" sign would also be enough that joe can't enter.

If anyone that thinks otherwise would be so kind as to post the case law that supposedly exists that purports to support their position then this could be quickly & easily resolved. I'd really like to see it. I have no problem being PROVEN wrong & I like to learn new things especially where the law is concerned.

being an account holder might just nullify tresspass;

No.?49A05-9712-CR-536. - WOODS v. STATE - IN Court of Appeals
"In summary, we conclude that Woods' membership granted her a contractual interest in the property occupied by Bally's. "

 

[eldirector]

Actually, that was a serious question. Don't roll your eyes at me.

I found Breach of Peace. Seems to mean "breaking the law".

I cannot find any definition for "implied threat" in IC.

You gonna help, or not?

 

[Roadie]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07060707pdm.pdf

"Our supreme court has stated that violence, either actual or threatened, is an essential element of breaching the peace."


"We believe that the element of communication of denial of entry or request to leave necessarily implies a reasonable period of time for the person receiving that communication to leave of her/his own volition. Mishler did not give Lemon such a reasonable period of time to comply, and therefore, in our view, no trespass occurred."

Thanks. I guess that puts the kabosh (sp?) to the idea that just the lawful carrying of a gun onto a posted property is a "breach of the peace".

(snip)

If you carry a gun, into a building that has noted you may not enter with a weapon, and you do enter: You are 1: Trespassing 2: Creating an implied threat 3: Breaching Peace.

(snip)

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong...