Return to “Inadvertent Entry into 30.06 Area”
Ah, yes. I keep forgetting it was lowered.goose wrote:As a Class C, wouldn't a trial only come into play if you refused to leave? And then it would be trespass? Granted an LEO without the knowledge could still take you downtown even if you were willing to leave, but wouldn't a judge write you a ticket and send you on your way?
It is a stretch, but that's the way it is worded and it would all be up to a judge or jury to decide which it is. I think that if I were ever put in the situation of defending myself against this type of violation that I would opt for a jury trial if it got to that point. I think that a jury would be better under these circumstances.ScottDLS wrote:I interpret it as here:C-dub wrote: ...
All of what you say might be completely correct. Could you please point out in the statute where notice "TO ME" is required?
Provides notice "to the person" that they are wishing to exclude. In my example...to me. The statute then goes on to define notice as a sign conspicuously placed and meeting the requirements. So you could argue that by posting the sign they are providing notice...to me, but I find that a stretch if I didn't see the sign. Meaning in my opinion it wasn't conspicuously placed...30.06
...
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
...
n.
All of what you say might be completely correct. Could you please point out in the statute where notice "TO ME" is required?ScottDLS wrote:C-dub wrote: ...
It is not required that a person see the sign. It is only required that it be there.
Here are the relevant parts of both 30.06 and 30.07 regarding signage.
30.06(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
...
If you didn't see it, you've got a pretty good argument that it wasn't "displayed in a conspicuous manner, clearly visible to the public".
To violate the 30.06 law requires you to enter and remain after 'receiving notice'. The notice has to be 'provided TO YOU' per the statute. And while a conspicuously displayed sign constitutes 'notice' in the statute, there's an argument as to whether it was 'provided to you' if it wasn't visible from where you entered. Or if you subsequently departed after noticing it.
So to OP question, I wouldn't be worried if I were in the situation that his friend was in. In my opinion he wasn't violating the law if he left after noticing the sign. And it would be unlikely to "take the ride" for a class C even if someone (in authority) noticed he was carrying.
I went to a restaurant the other day carrying concealed. I noticed a HUGE 30.07 sign as I walked in, so I figured I was OK. When I left, I noticed a 30.06 on the other wall that I hadn't seen coming in. You could argue I broke the law, because the 30.06 was arguably conspicuous. I didn't intend to break the law, and I won't go back there carrying, but I'm not going to go report myself to the local JP court for them to charge me...
vjallen75 wrote:Thanks for looking that up, I stand corrected. I was of the impression it had to be at all entrances. That would be a good place to put it. At the mall we frequent that is in the center of the mall.C-dub wrote:A 30.06 sign doesn't even have to be at an entrance. It can be well inside to store/mall. For a mall, I'm thinking about any of the large central areas where things like Christmas trees or stages are located where everyone COULD see it.
It is not required that a person see the sign. It is only required that it be there.vjallen75 wrote: Based off of the highlighted statement the only way all could see it if it is posted on ALL entrances correct? Someone will miss it if not. That person would have to prove that the sign was not there when they walked in the mall.
I could be wrong but this is what I have been told and my understanding of TPC.
30.07(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
A 30.06 sign doesn't even have to be at an entrance. It can be well inside the store/mall. For a mall, I'm thinking about any of the large central areas where things like Christmas trees or stages are located where everyone COULD see it.(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.
This is only true for 30.07. Then the question/differentiation becomes the definition of an entrance to the mall versus an entrance to a satellite department store. The point then could be made that each entrance to the mall via a department store like that would also require a 30.07. I'm fairly sure that most malls that do post have posted have correctly posted each of their external entrances, but would doubt that they have also posted each of their internal entrances where one transitions from a store like Macy's, Sears, or Dillard's to the mall itself.vjallen75 wrote:These is a huge grey area when it comes to malls. And as C-Dub stated, this has not been tested in court.
IMHO, I don't have the correct wording because I am at work but from my knowledge TPS is very clear that all entrances and have to be posted for it to be a crime.
