Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What 602 section applies?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • CityCop21
    replied
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post
    City,

    I learned how to handle trespassers by my second week of FTO. If you think it's that confusing, go get another job. It's not. After 30 years, I can tell when it's a fail. For example; you are a fail.

    You can go now, I'm done with you.
    The 602 section is very convoluted, just look at the piles of case law regarding it as it pertains to people rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Hell, it appears you don't even fully understand it based on your previous response in this forum to the OP regarding 602(o)...

    But that's great you learned about it 30 years ago and apparently never thought about it again. You must be an awesome cop. However, other people are not as gifted as you are and this is a good place for them to discuss issues like this. I have learned a lot from discussions on this board, I hope I have helped people as well. After all, that is the entire point of a forum....to discuss things. This is a police forum....to discuss police things. Why that makes you angry I have no idea

    Leave a comment:


  • CityCop21
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperSecretNinjaSquirrel View Post
    Does PC 602.5 apply to other renters who are sharing a lease for the same building, entering and remaining in a location of the building that is not considered a common area? Yeah, make them handle it, but if they are wanting to push the issue?
    If they are renters (i.e., paying) then the reporting party will have to go through the eviction process. You can't do the 602.5 hook even if they demand it. If the other party is paying money, it is a civil issue

    Leave a comment:


  • Feb2nd1979
    replied
    There is and always will be that dikhead at a PD who claims they know everything and belittles others who are trying to learn or need clarification on a topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • ateamer
    replied
    Easy...why so angry? I was an FTO for six years...if nothing else learned that patience and an open mind toward training and learning is critical for the trainer.

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    City,

    I learned how to handle trespassers by my second week of FTO. If you think it's that confusing, go get another job. It's not. After 30 years, I can tell when it's a fail. For example; you are a fail.

    You can go now, I'm done with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperSecretNinjaSquirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by California Penal Code §602.5(a)
    Every person other than a public officer or employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment in performance of a duty imposed by law, who enters or remains in any noncommercial dwelling house, apartment, or other residential place without consent of the owner, his or her agent, or the person in lawful possession thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    Does PC 602.5 apply to other renters who are sharing a lease for the same building, entering and remaining in a location of the building that is not considered a common area? Yeah, make them handle it, but if they are wanting to push the issue?
    Last edited by SuperSecretNinjaSquirrel; 06-02-2015, 12:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CityCop21
    replied
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post
    Nowhere did I say it's not approved. He asked, I told him WHO to talk to and where to look. Apparently, some part of his training failed him or his agency is dysfunctional. As stated, it's the DA who is going to file, not another cop. How hard is that to understand?
    "No. It's cops that are giving the input. It's bare facts, not endless discussions. Don't like it? Pass on by.
    This post is almost a year old. Seems the OP figured it out... " .....I would say right there makes it seem like you don't approve. FYI, this is a forum....for discussions. Doesn't have to be "bare facts" California trespass laws and in regards to freedom of speech are very complicated and constantly evolving. I updated this thread with relevant case law that had not been discussed yet, I don't see what the issue is with that.

    Someone asking the question the OP asked does not mean his department or training failed him or is dysfunctional. It's a good question because most veteran cops I know would just compel the guy (from the Starbucks example) to move along and go 10-8. The only problem is you have no legal basis to do so and if you do it to the wrong person this day in age you could be done as a cop. And just FYI, after the OP asked if 602(o) would apply your response "The property owner or representative must be willing to sign, unless you have some type of trespass letter."....that is completely incorrect. 602(o) does not apply because the business is open to the general public. Just because there is a trespass letter or the business owner will sign a CA changes nothing and if you accept that arrest the fallout is on you. Maybe your department has failed you

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    Originally posted by Blizz View Post
    Is there any type of discussion you DO approve of?
    Nowhere did I say it's not approved. He asked, I told him WHO to talk to and where to look. Apparently, some part of his training failed him or his agency is dysfunctional. As stated, it's the DA who is going to file, not another cop. How hard is that to understand?

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    No. It's cops that are giving the input. It's bare facts, not endless discussions. Don't like it? Pass on by.
    This post is almost a year old. Seems the OP figured it out...
    Last edited by CCCSD; 05-31-2015, 05:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CityCop21
    replied
    Originally posted by Blizz View Post
    Is there any type of discussion you DO approve of?
    Lol agreed...It would be nice if we could post questions on here and have discussions with other cops and gain something from the knowledge and experience from our peers....but some people don't seem to like that idea and make sure they respond to everyone's post with some non-contributing statement about how they should ask someone else.....I don't see why this is not an appropriate forum????....anyway, just my two cents

    Leave a comment:


  • Blizz
    replied
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post
    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.
    Is there any type of discussion you DO approve of?

    Leave a comment:


  • CityCop21
    replied
    Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
    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.
    There has been relatively recent case law (2010) to more narrowly define the broad allowances for people to congregate at shopping malls/businesses, etc. and excersing their freedom of speech. In a California Court of Appeals (3rd District) decision in Ralphs Grocery Co. V. United Foods and Commercial Workers Union, it was decided that the only places in these shopping centers and businesses that are an "open forum" for the exercise of free speech in a public place are those places were the public congregate, relax, etc. Places such as food courts, open areas within a mall where couches and chairs are placed for people to linger, etc. will apply. However, for the first time, it was decided that apron and perimeter areas (near entrances and exits where solicitors and people exercising their freedom of speech like to be) is NOT a public forum for the purposes of the California Constitution.

    "“We decline to extend the holding in Pruneyard to the entrance and exit area of an individual retail establishment within a larger shopping center. [The plaintiffs'] evidence concerning the public nature of certain shopping centers' common areas failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether apron and perimeter areas at the entrances and exits of [the defendants'] stores served as public fora.” (Van, supra, at p. 1391; see also Albertson's, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 109-110 [holding that entrance area of grocery store not a public forum even though store located in shopping center].) - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-....ynOf0dFt.dpuf

    The same is true here. Although there was evidence that College Square included common areas and restaurants where outdoor seating was available, the entrance area and apron of Foods Co did not include such areas. Thus, because they were not designed and presented to the public as public meeting places, the entrance area and apron of Foods Co is not a public forum under the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution. And because the area was not a public forum, Ralphs, as a private property owner, could limit the speech allowed and could exclude anyone desiring to engage in prohibited speech. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1532134.html#sthash.ynOf0dFt.dpuf"

    - California Court of Appeals in Ralphs Grocery Company V United Food and Commercial Workers (2010).

    With this recent case law victory for property owners, it establishes a lawful basis for us to arrest anyone in these areas, even if their claim is they are exercising a freedom of speech, as long as it can be articulated they are interfering with business and the business is willing to make a citizens arrest (for 602.1).

    However, it still would not be lawful to arrest someone who is in a common area of a business (as the OP described), where people relax and linger, if the complaint is they are interfering with business, but that interference is somehow an expression of free speech, so be careful with that. Remember, in California, you can not arrest for trespassing in a store or business open to the public just because the business owner wants them gone. In those cases, they have to be intentionally interfering with business, or have been convicted of a crime on the property in the past. The only other option would be is if they are "occupying" the property, which the Courts have upheld is essentially lodging on the property.

    So to answer the original OP, if you have solicitors that you can articulate are intentionally interfering with business and the owner will sign the C.A., under the recent case law cited, you should be good in making a hook. But because this still remains such a gray area, I would try to avoid it. If they aren't causing a disturbance as you stated, then there is no PC to arrest for us, but the owner would have a legal basis to seek an injuction against the other party if it is a continual issue.

    If it is a transient issue, and they are not causing a disturbance, if you can articulate they are "occupying" the property, then take them for 602(m). If not, check their criminal history and if they have been convicted of a crime at the property take them for 602(t). Those are your only legal options. As for you Starbucks example, you would have no legal basis to compel the guy to leave, as he is not intentionally interfering with business, is not "occupying" per the M section and lets say has not been convicted of a crime in the past. Even if their are posted "no loitering" or "no trespassing" signs, those are not enforceable under any penal code section and the Supreme Court has upheld loitering laws, without anything else attached (loitering for prostitution, loitering in high crime area, etc.) is unconstitional and have removed such laws from our books (remember the old 647(e)?). So even if the Starbucks has a "no loitering" sign and demand he be arrested, under the circumstance you provided, you still could not hook him. In those circumstances, refer the business owner to their State Assembly person.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdrdep
    replied
    In addition Civil Code 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act) states that all people within the State are considered equal and specifically applies to businesses. Courts have liberally interpreted to require businesses to justify denying service to prospective customers

    " Civil Code section 51 provides:
    (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
    (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
    (c) This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition.
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor shall anything in this section be construed to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws."

    Leave a comment:


  • mdrdep
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CAprotectNserve
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4219 users online. 248 members and 3971 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X