Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What 602 section applies?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What 602 section applies?

    So we frequently get calls to an outdooor shopping center due to solicitors and transients.

    For the most part they fall in line with sections 602(k) PC and 602.1 PC.

    But it got me thinking, what if any section applies to a person who is not causing a disturbance and simply refuses to leave?

    Example would be a person hanging out in Starbucks and refuses to leave. Employees have no reasoning as to why they want the guy gone other than he makes them feel uncomfortable and they have the right to refuse service.

    Would the same apply to a person just wandering around in the shopping center. Security wants them gone but with no reasoning.

  • #2
    Originally posted by NuBoot1035 View Post
    So we frequently get calls to an outdooor shopping center due to solicitors and transients.

    For the most part they fall in line with sections 602(k) PC and 602.1 PC.

    But it got me thinking, what if any section applies to a person who is not causing a disturbance and simply refuses to leave?

    Example would be a person hanging out in Starbucks and refuses to leave. Employees have no reasoning as to why they want the guy gone other than he makes them feel uncomfortable and they have the right to refuse service.

    Would the same apply to a person just wandering around in the shopping center. Security wants them gone but with no reasoning.
    I would think 602(t)(1) PC applies to your scenario.... But I've never used it for my declarations, when I have made arrests for trespassing.

    With that said, I've generally used 602.1(a) PC as the catch all. But generally only make the arrest if the owners desire a citizen's arrest. I have yet to get a nasty gram from the detectives taking the cases. So I guess I'm doing it right.
    "The only easy day was yesterday"

    Comment


    • #3
      are signs posted? if so go with the trespassing or even loitering sections. But remember signs have to be posted so encourage store owners or propertery owners to post signs.
      I'd rather be judged by 12 rather carried by 6.

      It should be noted that any and all post that are made are based on my own thought and opinions. And are not related or implied to represent the department I work for.

      Comment


      • #4
        What does your FTO say? Dept. SOP? DA? Ask them. The DA is the one charging, so it would behoove you to get their guidance.
        Now go home and get your shine box!

        Comment


        • #5
          At times who cares what the DA charges. If its legitimate arrest and solved the problem for the night so be it. If you are worried about what the DA will charge and not charge you are in the wrong job. If you have spent a minute around the court house you know most DA's will take the case they know they will win. Your job as a Dep or Officer is to try and solve the problem at hand with what you got. If its a violation of the law and can articulate it in your probable clause deceleration ie meeting the elements of the crime then arrest or cite.
          I'd rather be judged by 12 rather carried by 6.

          It should be noted that any and all post that are made are based on my own thought and opinions. And are not related or implied to represent the department I work for.

          Comment


          • #6
            Except that if you keep arresting and the DA won't file, you have a problem. And that's why we lose those great laws that give us a tool. It's called being smart.
            Now go home and get your shine box!

            Comment


            • #7
              Seems like 602(o) PC would apply to someone who refuses to leave a shopping center.

              Language says private property not open to the general public.

              Easy enough to articulate that even though its property open to the public its still private property strictly for the use of patrons.

              Anyone disagree?

              Comment


              • #8
                The property owner or representative must be willing to sign, unless you have some type of trespass letter.
                Now go home and get your shine box!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yea we have trespass letters but sadly we rarely use them.

                  The other problem is were constantly dealing with different people.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The problem with the Starbucks example is they encourage loitering. If the guy buys a coffee he can stay there all day.

                    As far as solicitors, there is extensive case law regarding them. I wouldn't do anything until you get direction from your brass who should get their direction from the DA. 1st Amendment issues come into play and I'm certain your agency doesn't welcome lawsuits.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Employee's are going to have to give you something to run with as to why they don't want him around. Just creepy or transient isn't going to cut it. Unless you don't mind running afowl of the state's civil rights act (Unruh)
                      Today's Quote:

                      "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                      Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by NuBoot1035 View Post
                        Seems like 602(o) PC would apply to someone who refuses to leave a shopping center.

                        Language says private property not open to the general public.

                        Easy enough to articulate that even though its property open to the public its still private property strictly for the use of patrons.

                        Anyone disagree?
                        Yes. Shopping centers are "Generally open to the general public." Your house is not, neither is behind the counter or back room of a retail store. A shopping center (and it's parking lot for you CVC 22651 folks) is generally open for the use of the public.
                        "It's a game of cat and mouse. It's a game of hide and seek. Albeit games with deadly consequences. Like most games-the better you know the rules, the more likely you are to win."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NuBoot1035 View Post
                          Seems like 602(o) PC would apply to someone who refuses to leave a shopping center.

                          Language says private property not open to the general public.

                          Easy enough to articulate that even though its property open to the public its still private property strictly for the use of patrons.

                          Anyone disagree?
                          Yes, I disagree. Shopping centers are generally "Open for the use of the general public." Your house is not, neither is behind the counter or back room of a retail store. A shopping center (and it's parking lot for you CVC 22651 folks) are. If they are closed and make it known that their use is not authorized (Like posted signs saying "No Overnight Parking" or "Customers Only" or they put a chain or gate across the driveway), that could change things.
                          "It's a game of cat and mouse. It's a game of hide and seek. Albeit games with deadly consequences. Like most games-the better you know the rules, the more likely you are to win."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            VC 22651 aside, doesn't VC 2800 as well PC 830 title 3 of part 2 AND Section 166 apply in this case?

                            A call for service was made..... Failure to comply applies, no?

                            ...unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Some case law you need to be aware of;

                              Pruneyard
                              Shopping Center v Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the California Constitution
                              protects "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers, even when
                              the centers are privately owned." The central theme of the court’s ruling was that
                              Pruneyard shopping center, because of its open public gathering areas, had become the
                              modern equivalent of the “Town Square.” The court gave commercial property owners the
                              right to establish regulations regarding reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions
                              on expressive activity, and allowed owners of "modest retail establishments" (smaller stand
                              alone stores not having the “Town Square” characteristics of Pruneyard) to prohibit all
                              expressive activity on their premises.

                              Costco Companies, Inc. v. Don Gallant (96 Cal. App 4th 740) - Allows a location to prohibit
                              expressive activity on certain days or the number of days/times in a given period.
                              Albertson’s Inc. v. James Young (107 Cal. App. 4th 106) - When a “modest retail
                              establishment” sets up time, place and manner restrictions, it does not make the location
                              the equivalent of a traditional public forum nor does this does not give solicitors a right to
                              use the property.
                              Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Campaigns (73 Cal. App. 4th 425) - Modest retail
                              establishments, are not public forums which require that their owners permit expressive
                              activity.
                              Today's Quote:

                              "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                              Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4760 users online. 226 members and 4534 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X