Verbal notice & return visits

[thejtrain]

Ok, so we know that verbal notice on private property carries as much weight as a posted 30.06 sign. But what about return visits to the same establishment?

Leaving aside our personal proclivity to "vote with our feet", what are the legal ramifications of being given verbal notice on one occasion, and returning on some other date? Is that verbal notice only binding for that visit, or is it incumbent on the CHL holder to remember that he'd been given notice at that particular establishment, and to abide by that for every subsequent visit? It sounds reasonable for a single occurrence (after all, we're expected to remember lots of things, like which side of the road to drive on, etc.), but if you expand that to include every place of business you might visit (just imagine a very proud but not very smart CHL who tells everyone he meets) that quickly reaches unreasonableness.

Just wanted to bounce that off the smart folks here. I'm not carrying yet (no plastic) but I'm trying to think ahead and I'm coming up with situations that are making me think. What prompted this question is thinking about places that I go frequently with the family (think Chuck E. Cheese, etc.).

JT

[Keith B]

Verbal notice constitutes continuing notice. Just like a posted 30.06 sign.

It is really no different that telling someone to get off your property for any trespassing. You can't come back again after being told to stay away and expect to be allowed on the property again. In turn, you should expect more severe penalties for repeated trespassing.

[CHL/LEO]

It is really no different that telling someone to get off your property for any trespassing. You can't come back again after being told to stay away and expect to be allowed on the property again. In turn, you should expect more severe penalties for repeated trespassing.

Just an FYI - in Dallas when we issue written Criminal Trespass Warnings they only stay in force for six months. If someone comes back within that time frame they can be arrested. If it's after six months they would have to be issued another warning. That's just our city's policy as there is nothing in the PC that I'm aware of that reflects that time frame.

[Keith B]

It is really no different that telling someone to get off your property for any trespassing. You can't come back again after being told to stay away and expect to be allowed on the property again. In turn, you should expect more severe penalties for repeated trespassing.

Just an FYI - in Dallas when we issue written Criminal Trespass Warnings they only stay in force for six months. If someone comes back within that time frame they can be arrested. If it's after six months they would have to be issued another warning. That's just our city's policy as there is nothing in the PC that I'm aware of that reflects that time frame.

I guess that makes sense. Kinda like the 'Do Not Call' notification. Once you notify them not to call you (unless you are on the permanent list) they can call you again after a year. You have to tell them once again to put you on their DNC list.

However, personally, if I am told to stay away form a location, I am going to abide by their wishes permanently. That is unless they just have the best pie in town, then will send my wife in after a piece to take home!!

[DoubleJ]

"Cover me, I'm going in."

[srothstein]

Well, it kind of depends on the notice. If they say to leave the gun in the car today, it is not continuing notice as their very statement made it for the one day. If they say "We do not allow guns in here" then it is continuing.

And to give a contrasting view to CHL/LEO, in Luling, the PD kept criminal trespass notices forever. They have even won cases where it was over a year later and the original manager of the business had moved on, just using the signed notice as evidence.

[KRM45]

CT warnings are good for 2 years in Denton...

[Penn]

How would this be proven in a criminal trial? When giving verbal notice, do owners keep a record of who t hey gave it to. If not, it would be his word against the CHL, right?

[Charles L. Cotton]

How would this be proven in a criminal trial? When giving verbal notice, do owners keep a record of who t hey gave it to. If not, it would be his word against the CHL, right?

This happens all the time in trials. "He said, she said" is a problem juries face in most trials and it comes down to who the jury believes. By law, the fact-finder (judge or jury) has the right to determine the credibility of witnesses.

Chas.

[HankB]

I've never been given verbal notice at an unposted venue.

Never.

Unless they have a well-known policy of giving verbal notice to everybody, or have witnesses to them giving you, specifically, verbal notice, it's going to be a "who said what to whom, and when did they do so" type of thing. IANAL, but it seems to me that a successful prosecution would be an uphill battle unless there's something else about your behavior that would put you in a bad light. (Picking a fight, rowdyness on your part, etc., would make things look very bad for you.)

And that's only if you're actually "made" carrying a gun.

And even then, only if things get to the point where you end up in court.

[stevie_d_64]

I have to push this a little further, and Stan's comments were going in a direction I was thinking about all of this...

The question you have to find the answer to is this, "What promulgated the verbal notice to begin with?"...

Did you somehow expose the firearm to view by someone and they notified someone in authority in the facility you were in...But remember we are tasked to "reasonably" maintain the firearm we carry in a concealed manner, there is no brandishing offence in Texas for failing to conceal as far as I know, and that our friend "TXI" has stated for years in response to these situations...

But yet, you carried in that facility without a visual (not verbal at this time) que via the 30.06 posting???

Regardless of the method of discovery of your firearm, lets accept that the verbal notice has been delivered...There are few places I can think of that I would need to return to after receiving a notification like that, so a repeat appearance by me is improbable...

So that leaves us with this to ponder...

If you are officially delivered a verbal "get the heck off my property with that gun!" notification...It would seem to me that if for some reason you "need" to go back at some time to that same property...

Does that give "anyone" that recalls who you are, the authority to inquire as to if you are carrying a gun again???

I mean lets get right down to it...If this is the premise to breech the "none of your business" response, or if they remember you, to call the law to do the dirty work for them, to which you "have" to inform law enforcement if you are carrying per the law...

Would you carry inside that property in the future??? And risk the scrutiny of a past experience that "outed" you in the first place???

Because I believe the reason you were given a legally binding no tresspass notification was simply because they found out you were carrying a firearm and they didn't like that...So if you return somewhere in the future, and they remember you, are you technically violating that notification IF you are not carrying a firearm at that time???

[thejtrain]

Thanks for all the comments and thoughts, guys. Obviously it'll have to be a case-by-case "how did it go down" kind of thing.

Does that give "anyone" that recalls who you are, the authority to inquire as to if you are carrying a gun again???

Would you carry inside that property in the future??? And risk the scrutiny of a past experience that "outed" you in the first place???

Exactly, that's what I'm pondering. From a legal standpoint, is the verbal notice they gave binding for future visits? If the consequences of "risking the scrutiny of a past experience that 'outed' me" are being given verbal notice again and I have to leave again, that's one thing, and I could probably see myself risking that. If the consequences of same are instead an arrest for criminal trespass based on the prior verbal notice, then that's something that I probably would NOT risk. Hence my hypothetical question.

JT