Asked to leave, then arrested?

[Purplehood]

I just read this:

In other states, like Texas, the signs are considered trespass notices and violators are first asked to leave, then they are arrested for trespass if they decline (of course, if your weapon is visible, it's no longer concealed and there are other potential legal consequences).

Is this the case? If this is the case, couldn't a CHL holder ignore a 30.06 sign secure in the knowledge that not only does he/she have to be "made" first, but that they always have the option of leaving if asked?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I just read this:

In other states, like Texas, the signs are considered trespass notices and violators are first asked to leave, then they are arrested for trespass if they decline (of course, if your weapon is visible, it's no longer concealed and there are other potential legal consequences).

Is this the case? If this is the case, couldn't a CHL holder ignore a 30.06 sign secure in the knowledge that not only does he/she have to be "made" first, but that they always have the option of leaving if asked?

This is a very common procedure used by police officers, but it is not a prerequisite to prosecution. Typically, the officer will have the property owner tell the person to leave and if they don't, the officer makes the arrest. Even if they leave, many departments have a policy of giving the person a written "trespass warning" that is kept on file for some period of time. If the person returns to the same property, the police know they've already been warned and an arrest is made. Again, this is a common procedure, not a legal requirement.

When you cross a sign that complies with the requirements of TPC §30.06, you have committed a criminal trespass.

Chas.

[AEA]

Most of us choose to go somewhere else to spend our money. Some place that is not Anti-Gun.

The only exception to this that I know of is those CHL'ers that may go somewhere with their Family and it's special event or otherwise not something that they could go to a reasonable substitution.

Of course, most of them realize that this is exactly where they need their guns to protect the Family that is with them!

[srothstein]

Charles has the correct answer. Most cops will try to avoid arresting and give the persona chance to leave, but it is not required under the law. This is true for any criminal trespass, including 30.06. I have seen cases where the person was asked to leave and refused. The cops got the call for someone refusing to leave and arrived and made the arrest without ever asking him or giving him a chance to leave. Usually, this is because of a prior history with the suspect, but it does not have to be.

[Locksmith]

. .

[BigBlueDodge]

be careful with this. Do not interpret this as loophole as a way to get around a posted 30.06 sign. Personally, I think that the law is a little lenient, in the sense that you can get out without an infraction, even if you knowingly see the sign, choose to break the law and enter the premise, thereby willingly committing trespass. Given by some of the responses I've seen other threads on this forum, you only break the law if you get caught, which I feel is a wrong approach to take.

[GrayHawk]

Since Criminal Trespass is a misdemeanor, it has to be committed in the officer's presence in order that an immediate arrest be made. I believe that is the reason an officer on scene will ask a property owner to tell someone to leave in the officer's presence. If the person comply's- no arrest. If no immediate compliance-you take the ride. I believe alot of agencies will file some type of incident report documenting a trespass warning so if they have to return an arrest can be made without another warning in the officer's presence. The prior report would serve as the "notice" required by statute. As stated above, I'd take my business elsewhere.

[SlowDave]

Yeah, but if you're standing in an area that is 30.06 posted with a concealed weapon when the officer arrives, he is seeing you in the process of committing the trespass and can arrest you without any verbal warning if he likes.

[GrayHawk]

Yes sir, you're correct. Same holds true on property that is properly posted with "No Trespassing" signage. Signs themselves serve as "notice." I should have differentiated between Criminal Trespass and 30.06..

[Morgan]

I personally think that any location that serves the public shouldn't be allowed to post 30.06 without doing something significant. Like a mall should be required to have a certain number of armed guards per however many square feet or whatever. But if you serve the public and don't protect them, it shouldn't be legal to disallow them their own protection.

Of course the nice thing about 30.06 signs is that they say, "If you spend money here, it will likely go to a business that has a stronger likelihood of donating money to leftist political organization than if you spend it somewhere else."

[pedalman]

This is a very common procedure used by police officers, but it is not a prerequisite to prosecution. Typically, the officer will have the property owner tell the person to leave and if they don't, the officer makes the arrest. Even if they leave, many departments have a policy of giving the person a written "trespass warning" that is kept on file for some period of time. If the person returns to the same property, the police know they've already been warned and an arrest is made. Again, this is a common procedure, not a legal requirement.

I suscribe to the UT Austin Campus Police email list. A written trespass warning is standard procedure there. There are numerous blotter entries about people being arrested by Campus Police, after it was found that they had a previous written trespass warning in their jackets. My guess is that this is due to the large influx of uhhh...eccentrics that seem drawn to the campus. Too many violators to keep track off.