IANAL, but here is some case law that says that a person is not required to be given oral notice each time.flintknapper wrote:Yes, I am not arguing the mechanics of the notice, just not certain that notice given is 'permanent' or would not be required each time a person entered an establishment that has no sign or a non-compliant sign since one element required to make it an arrest-able offense is refusal to 'leave'.Not much to ponder, once it's been said and heard, notice has been given. You can't unhear it.
I don't want to take this thread off course and discuss that here, but I can certainly imagine some savvy lawyers being able to make a good case for that.
No doubt, this will eventually end up in court. I will NOT be present, I can assure you.
The original oral notice was given on June 2, 2001 and the arrest was made Sept 16, 2001. Upon appeal his conviction was affirmed. The court did not address any time restrictions.
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html
