Kids planet "no firearms" ic

[Quiet Observer]

That's all fine and dandy, but "no gun signs" do not hold the force of law in Indiana.

The sign is question notifies a person that they would be violating Indiana's trespassing law. One would be charged only with trespassing.
In states where no gun signs have the force of law, one could be charged with violation of both trespassing and gun laws.

 

[firecadet613]

The sign is question notifies a person that they would be violating Indiana's trespassing law. One would be charged only with trespassing.
In states where no gun signs have the force of law, one could be charged with violation of both trespassing and gun laws.

Doubtful.

It is NOT a no trespassing sign (or purple paint).

It's a no gun sign with the trespassing IC listed.

Per Indiana law, you have to be asked to leave (and refuse to leave) before being charged with trespassing, as no gun signs do NOT carry the force of law.

If it were a no trespassing sign, what you're saying would be true. Doesn't make much sense for a business to have a no trespassing sign up, though...

Feel free to be the test case, although unless you're an ***, BPD will just ask you to leave...

 

[cbhausen]

I may or may not have carried in there several times. Cover it up and shut up.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The sign is question notifies a person that they would be violating Indiana's trespassing law. One would be charged only with trespassing.
In states where no gun signs have the force of law, one could be charged with violation of both trespassing and gun laws.

Regardless of what the black letter law, or even case law, is such a case is extremely unlikely to be filed. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt I saw and read the sign.

A more serious example, a resisting shoplifter is by both IC code and by case law a robbery. The case law is old enough it's a pager store. Suspect steals from the store, manager confronts him in the parking lot, suspect displays a knife and flees. Arrested, charged with armed robbery, convicted, appeals and the whole 9 yards, state supreme court agrees it's a robbery. But times changed, juries didn't like it and quit convicted on it, prosecutors stopped filing it as robbery and went to theft and intimidation. Which is *by definition* a robbery, but juries like it.

So, unless you are on video reading with your finger and mouthing the words, you get a bored prosecutor who hates your INGO history, or the mayor's daughter sees your piece when you're in the ball pit (innuendo...or no?) I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[bobzilla]

Regardless of what the black letter law, or even case law, is such a case is extremely unlikely to be filed. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt I saw and read the sign.

A more serious example, a resisting shoplifter is by both IC code and by case law a robbery. The case law is old enough it's a pager store. Suspect steals from the store, manager confronts him in the parking lot, suspect displays a knife and flees. Arrested, charged with armed robbery, convicted, appeals and the whole 9 yards, state supreme court agrees it's a robbery. But times changed, juries didn't like it and quit convicted on it, prosecutors stopped filing it as robbery and went to theft and intimidation. Which is *by definition* a robbery, but juries like it.

So, unless you are on video reading with your finger and mouthing the words, you get a bored prosecutor who hates your INGO history, or the mayor's daughter sees your piece when you're in the ball pit (innuendo...or no?) I wouldn't sweat it.

But you’ll get arrested!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But you’ll get arrested!

It's a greater than 0% chance, I suppose, but probably not much greater. Folks can roll their own dice, but it's a risk I'm comfortable with over what is, at worst, an A misdemeanor.

 

[Mgderf]

"Signs, signs, everywhere are signs,
blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind,
do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs?"...
"And the sign said anyone caught trespassing,
will be shot on sight,
so I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house,
"Hey, what gives you the right?"

 

[rbhargan]

"Signs, signs, everywhere are signs,
blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind,
do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs?"...
"And the sign said anyone caught trespassing,
will be shot on sight,
so I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house,
"Hey, what gives you the right?"

Didn't you see the sign?

 

[Mgderf]

Didn't you see the sign?

Another old reference.
You're obviously a "young whippersnapper".

 

[firecadet613]

Another old reference.
You're obviously a "young whippersnapper".

I'm a young whippersnapper and even I got the reference!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Didn't you see the sign?

Greatly condensed story:

Buddy of mine and I used to take an 'employees only' marked hallway to exit a building due to how much quicker it was than the one we were supposed to use as...not employees. My buddy convinced me to go along with it by saying "if we get caught, pretend you don't know how to read." I figured it wasn't beyond question a hillbilly kid was functionally illiterate, but we never got challenged so it never mattered.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

"Signs, signs, everywhere are signs,
blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind,
do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs?"...
"And the sign said anyone caught trespassing,
will be shot on sight,
so I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house,
"Hey, what gives you the right?"

A guy did get convicted of trespassing for doing something like that. He was standing on a fence that had a no trespassing sign. IIRC his conviction was upheld by the court of appeals.

He argued that he didn't set foot on the property, it was upheld because he broke the plane of the property line.

 

[ditcherman]

Greatly condensed story:

Buddy of mine and I used to take an 'employees only' marked hallway to exit a building due to how much quicker it was than the one we were supposed to use as...not employees. My buddy convinced me to go along with it by saying "if we get caught, pretend you don't know how to read." I figured it wasn't beyond question a hillbilly kid was functionally illiterate, but we never got challenged so it never mattered.

Well, that was a disappointing ending.

It seems to be pretty routine practice to completely ignore "employees only beyond this point" in mechanic shops and such in my neck of the woods. Like the sign just doesn't exist. Just there for the "I told you so" insurance and lawyers.

 

[chipbennett]

A retail establishment has a right to determine who, and under what conditions they may enter. Granted the state can put some limitations on the establishment's power i regards to race, color, etc., but that is not part of this discussion.
From the referenced law:
"(c) A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;

A general "no trespassing" sign or a general "no guns" sign is not "personal communication".

(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;

This one, very specifically, refers to "No Trespassing". And it also applies to persons without a contractual interest in the property.

(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; or

Obviously not applicable.

(4) posting the property by placing identifying purple marks on trees or posts around the area where entry is denied."

Again, evidence that this entire section is referring to "No Trespassing".

The law requires only one method of denial, not all four. It does not require personal interaction between the trespasser and the owner or agent.

And none of the four is met by a "no guns" sign.

I cannot find where the law states that the words "No Trespassing" must be on the notice.

The entire section refers to Criminal Trespass.

There is no contractual interest. Both parties must agree for a contract to exist. In this case the owner or agent has refused to agree to the presence of a gun. What contract was assumed to have existed with that person is void.

Contractual Interest Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

In the context of criminal trespass,

definitions.uslegal.com

A few points:

1. A store owner who is open to the public has an implied contractual interest in customers entering the store. An agent of the property can certainly revoke that contractual interest, but must do so via (c)(1) "personal communication". An oral notice of trespass suffices. A written sign saying "John Doe is not permitted on these premises" would suffice. A "no guns" sign does not suffice.
2. Refusing the physical presence of a gun is not the same thing as refusing the physical presence of a person. The statute in question addresses the trespass of people, not guns. People can be trespassed, under statute. Guns cannot be.
3. Legislative intent is pretty clear, in that the legislature has declined to enact statutes giving "no guns" signs statutory authority/force of law.
4. Not a single person (to my knowledge) has been charged under your theory, much less tried or convicted.

 

[chipbennett]

The sign is question notifies a person that they would be violating Indiana's trespassing law. One would be charged only with trespassing.
In states where no gun signs have the force of law, one could be charged with violation of both trespassing and gun laws.

Nope. Because the sign is neither a general "No Trespassing" notice nor is it "personal communication".

Please cite an instance of someone - anyone - in Indiana being charged with trespassing based only on the presence of such a sign. I'll wait.

 

[chipbennett]

Regardless of what the black letter law, or even case law, is such a case is extremely unlikely to be filed. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt I saw and read the sign.

A more serious example, a resisting shoplifter is by both IC code and by case law a robbery. The case law is old enough it's a pager store. Suspect steals from the store, manager confronts him in the parking lot, suspect displays a knife and flees. Arrested, charged with armed robbery, convicted, appeals and the whole 9 yards, state supreme court agrees it's a robbery. But times changed, juries didn't like it and quit convicted on it, prosecutors stopped filing it as robbery and went to theft and intimidation. Which is *by definition* a robbery, but juries like it.

So, unless you are on video reading with your finger and mouthing the words, you get a bored prosecutor who hates your INGO history, or the mayor's daughter sees your piece when you're in the ball pit (innuendo...or no?) I wouldn't sweat it.

Yep. I didn't even bring up that particular angle: "I didn't see the sign. Prove otherwise."

I suspect that police, in that circumstance (even if the sign in question were "No Trespassing"), would first say, "Well, now you know the sign is there. You need to leave." And if the person leaves, there would be no arrest. I imagine that police have better things to do with their time than try to push a Criminal Trespass charge for someone who, once personally communicated to, consents to leaving.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yep. I didn't even bring up that particular angle: "I didn't see the sign. Prove otherwise."

I suspect that police, in that circumstance (even if the sign in question were "No Trespassing"), would first say, "Well, now you know the sign is there. You need to leave." And if the person leaves, there would be no arrest. I imagine that police have better things to do with their time than try to push a Criminal Trespass charge for someone who, once personally communicated to, consents to leaving.

I posted a few years back that MCPO wouldn't file on sign only communication and I doubt that's changed. Hopping a fence or the like goes beyond 'sign only' but simple signage? Nope.

 

[HoughMade]

I wish we had a lawyer to help explain this.

(Purple) ?

You're on your own.

I'll just say this- highly unlikely to be enforced, prosecuted, whatever, is not the same as cannot be enforced.

"contractual interest in the property" does not mean that I am a customer of the business there.

 

[chipbennett]

You're on your own.

I'll just say this- highly unlikely to be enforced, prosecuted, whatever, is not the same as cannot be enforced.

"contractual interest in the property" does not mean that I am a customer of the business there.

Okay, fair point. I'll stop arguing that. I'll clarify to say that a property owner opening a place of business generally to the public is giving implied permission of entry to that place of business to the general public.

I'll just beat on (c)(2) more. (c)(1) defines a declaration of denial of entry of specifically named persons. (c)(2) defines a general declaration of denial of entry. Since there is currently nothing "prescribed by law" in this context, it would only apply if the posted/exhibited notice is "likely to come to the attention of the public" - and if the sign did constitute a general declaration of denial of entry.

On the first criterion: "I didn't see the sign." Good luck proving otherwise. And failing to prove otherwise refutes the assertion that the notice was "likely to come to the attention of the public."

On the second criterion: the sign isn't general; it denies entry to a subset of persons. It is intended to be specific, but doesn't meet the "personal communication" standard of (c)(1). Further, the legislative intent of (c)(2) is general denial of entry - i.e. denial of entry of all except those specifically granted permission to enter.

 

[HoughMade]

On the first criterion: "I didn't see the sign." Good luck proving otherwise. And failing to prove otherwise refutes the assertion that the notice was "likely to come to the attention of the public."

OK- I'll preface this by saying again, that in my personal non-legal advice opinion- this kind of thing is highly unlikely to be prosecuted.

That being said, if the defense is "I didn't see the sign", the prosecution can present pictures of the sign and the entrance and a jury can decide whether to believe your testimony that you did not see the sign. Of course, that would involve testifying and cross examination.....and if the sign was obvious enough, cross would be fun and what answer is given to the questions would be irrelevant. My argument is made with my questions.

[ETA] Social media posts about how ridiculous the sign is would be a bonus.

What a sign would have to say to allow for a case to be brought is a different matter altogether.

[ETA 2]

Anyhoo, this is absolutely the right place to have a conversation about what would constitute a criminal trespass for carriers...but whenever this comes up, I have thoughts about the private property rights of others and whether denying these businesses our $$ when they exercise their private property rights to exclude carriers and using the market may be the better way to go.