New Procedures at huntington bank

[eldirector]

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.

Does that change if I was an invited guest (a customer), who showed no other indication of being a threat other than simply possessing a "banned" item?

 

[clgustaveson]

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. "

Might is correct, but I highly doubt it.

"
Id. at 812.   In this context, “contractual interest” refers to Woods' right, arising out of her membership contract, to be present on Bally's property."

A membership at a fitness club is to gain access to that property. An account at a bank is not quite the same thing by any means.

 

[clgustaveson]

Does that change if I was an invited guest (a customer), who showed no other indication of being a threat other than simply possessing a "banned" item?

IMO yes. But the bank clearly does not agree, and has the right to do so.

 

[clgustaveson]

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

Interpretation interpretation interpretation...

A gun is a tool of violence and can under certain circumstances imply the threat thereof. IMO tresspassing with a tool of violence can reasonably imply this threat.

 

[Roadie]

Interpretation interpretation interpretation...

A gun is a tool of violence and can under certain circumstances imply the threat thereof. IMO tresspassing with a tool of violence can reasonably imply this threat.

Normally I would agree with you regarding "interpretations", however, one of those Interpretations is from the Indiana Supreme Court, the other is yours, which one holds more legal weight?

 

[singlestacksig]

Might is correct, but I highly doubt it.

"
Id. at 812.   In this context, “contractual interest” refers to Woods' right, arising out of her membership contract, to be present on Bally's property."

A membership at a fitness club is to gain access to that property. An account at a bank is not quite the same thing by any means.

yeah, a bank account is not the same.. but this is the first case I have seen that addresses the "customer" question..

 

[Roadie]

Sadly, if the TSA can get away with detaining a nursing mother for carrying breast milk, grope her, make her pour the milk into other containers, etc, among other countless indignities, I doubt Huntington will suffer any legal ramifications from a simple detention

 

[clgustaveson]

yeah, a bank account is not the same.. but this is the first case I have seen that addresses the "customer" question..

I think it's an interesting case nonetheless... it might be a tool in the belt in certain circumstances.

I am no lawyer, but I think this particular ruling could provide a base to make this case.

If you could prove that you were not trespassing and they detianed you, you could hold them liable.

One thing that might also place a damper on this situation is the actual account holders agreement. If you agree to their security measures, enough said you gave your consent to the "imprisonment" and the game is over.

 

[clgustaveson]

Normally I would agree with you regarding "interpretations", however, one of those Interpretations is from the Indiana Supreme Court, the other is yours, which one holds more legal weight?

No, there were two interpretations of a situation based on a ruling from the court.

Please read the ruling.

I think you are making a brash statement that is rather incorrect.

 

[kevman65]

When you enter a business's property you are entering a contract to do business. By doing so you agree to abide by the business rules of that business. If they are posted when you enter and you continue on, you have agreed to abide by all rules set forth by that business, if you violate any of those rules you are in breach of contract and guilty of trespass. Just because you don't agree with said rules and feel they are in violation of your personal rights no longer matters. You entered the business of your own free will and thus are bound by its rules.

Its no different than using this or any other message board, you have no rights, you have permissions granted by the owner. Every time you sign in you agree to abide by the rules. Just because you chose to not read them does not ease your burden under the contract.

Any business has the right to protect its employees and assets, OP walked into business in breach of the rules, was locked in, informed, and released. They could have called the LEO's and issued a trespass warrant, they did not, they released the OP.

Refusing to allow one to carry on private property is against no law. Detaining someone in this fashion is a gray area, the argument can be made by the bank that the lock down functions in that way and the OP was released once they were verbally informed of the infraction of the posted and written company rule.

Again, you have the right to carry on public property, you have the right to boycott any company that doesn't share your views, you do not have the right to break said rules when on their property.

 

[Roadie]

When you enter a business's property you are entering a contract to do business. By doing so you agree to abide by the business rules of that business. If they are posted when you enter and you continue on, you have agreed to abide by all rules set forth by that business, if you violate any of those rules you are in breach of contract and guilty of trespass. Just because you don't agree with said rules and feel they are in violation of your personal rights no longer matters. You entered the business of your own free will and thus are bound by its rules.

Its no different than using this or any other message board, you have no rights, you have permissions granted by the owner. Every time you sign in you agree to abide by the rules. Just because you chose to not read them does not ease your burden under the contract.

Any business has the right to protect its employees and assets, OP walked into business in breach of the rules, was locked in, informed, and released. They could have called the LEO's and issued a trespass warrant, they did not, they released the OP.

Refusing to allow one to carry on private property is against no law. Detaining someone in this fashion is a gray area, the argument can be made by the bank that the lock down functions in that way and the OP was released once they were verbally informed of the infraction of the posted and written company rule.

Again, you have the right to carry on public property, you have the right to boycott any company that doesn't share your views, you do not have the right to break said rules when on their property.

I will have to research the IC, but you are right about the "gray area". I was always under the impression a business could not detain a citizen without reasonable suspicion of a crime. ie: Wal Mart would have to SEE someone stealing to detain them, not just think they looked suspicious.

...but, since IANAL, I could be wrong...

 

[clgustaveson]

...but, since IANAL, I could be wrong...

 

[finity]

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

Good. Then I see you agree that the simple act of carrying a "prohibited" item (by company rule) is not in & of itself "trespassing". If it was the LEO would have grounds to immediately arrest the person & charge them.

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

So just lawfully carrying a properly holstered gun into a business that you want to transact business with is an "implied threat of violence" now? How about a small sheathed hunting knife? Or a pocket knife? Or is it just a gun? Sounds vaguely similar to "blood will run in the streets" to me.

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.

Feel free to take me up on my offer to post case law that you have previously said exists.

 

[singlestacksig]

I will have to research the IC, but you are right about the "gray area". I was always under the impression a business could not detain a citizen without reasonable suspicion of a crime. ie: Wal Mart would have to SEE someone stealing to detain them, not just think they looked suspicious.

...but, since IANAL, I could be wrong...

wlamart could hold someone under this code..
" IC 35-33-6-2
Probable cause; detention; procedure; statements by juveniles
Sec. 2. (a) An owner or agent of a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the theft:
(1) may:
(A) detain the person and request the person to identify himself or herself;

"

but notice it is only for theft.. anything else would have to be a citizens arrest..

 

[clgustaveson]

Good. Then I see you agree that the simple act of carrying a "prohibited" item (by company rule) is not in & of itself "trespassing". If it was the LEO would have grounds to immediately arrest the person & charge them.



So just lawfully carrying a properly holstered gun into a business that you want to transact business with is an "implied threat of violence" now? How about a small sheathed hunting knife? Or a pocket knife? Or is it just a gun? Sounds vaguely similar to "blood will run in the streets" to me.



Feel free to take me up on my offer to post case law that you have previously said exists.

You would not immediately be arrested by a LEO because it is likely LEO would not be present. Furthermore it would be virtually impossible to determine this violation.

Second bit- Lawfully carrying a weapon into a business you want to do business with is fine. Carrying a legal weapon while breaking the law is another story..... You are stretching what I am saying.

The last statement you made has syntax errors I can't work around, so I don't know what you are saying.

 

[Roadie]

You sure like that rolling eyes icon. Rather arrogant of you, don't you think?

If you don't like something someone says in this thread, may I suggest either debating it, or ignoring it, instead?

 

[clgustaveson]

wlamart could hold someone under this code..
" IC 35-33-6-2
Probable cause; detention; procedure; statements by juveniles
Sec. 2. (a) An owner or agent of a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing the theft:
(1) may:
(A) detain the person and request the person to identify himself or herself;

"

but notice it is only for theft.. anything else would have to be a citizens arrest..

 

[Roadie]

Isn't what I said, and the IC, the same thing?

He gets a thumbs up and I get an eye roll? lol
You are something else..

 

[singlestacksig]

You would not immediately be arrested by a LEO because it is likely LEO would not be present. Furthermore it would be virtually impossible to determine this violation.

Second bit- Lawfully carrying a weapon into a business you want to do business with is fine. Carrying a legal weapon while breaking the law is another story..... You are stretching what I am saying.

The last statement you made has syntax errors I can't work around, so I don't know what you are saying.

can you name a case where anyone was charged & convicted of tresspass for breaking a rule posted on a sign , in Indiana and without being asked to leave & not being given a chance to leave ?

 

[finity]

I will have to research the IC, but you are right about the "gray area". I was always under the impression a business could not detain a citizen without reasonable suspicion of a crime. ie: Wal Mart would have to SEE someone stealing to detain them, not just think they looked suspicious.

...but, since IANAL, I could be wrong...

No I am pretty sure you are correct.

IC 33-35-6 provides for the detention of a shoplifter only upon PC by the owner or agent. Even then that detention is limited under tht law.

Otherwise, I can't find any other provision for detention by a private party (which a business owner obviously is) to detain someone outside of the regular citizens arrest law.

ETA: Dang, scooped again.