Almost went to jail!!!

[WildBill]

I noticed this as well. "Apparent Authority" is a legal concept. Among other things, it generally means that the principal (owner in this case) is bound by the promises and is liable for the actions of the person who they allowed to possess apparent authority (the agent). I would be highly skeptical that a government agent has this level of authority for any particular business where they are not an owner or employee.

Charles - can you weigh in on this point? And does it work both ways? Can a LEO tell a CHL that they are authorized to carry past a valid 30.06 sign since they have apparent authority to act on the property owners' behalf?

Police have long been able to issue Criminal Trespass Warnings on behalf of an owner. Why would this change now?

I am just questioning the specific terminology of "someone with apparent authority". IANAL, and am more used to contract interpretations than anything related to criminal law, but as applied to contracts, someone with apparent authority can legally obligate the principal to a contract, include obligations to perform a service, pay monies, etc. It just seems very odd that a property owner would want an average LEO to have this level of authority.

I am particularly interested in whether this same term has a different meaning in the context of Texas CHL laws.

Without knowing better, I would have assumed that police would need express authority to issue a valid criminal trespass warning (the owner asking the officer to please issue the warning), and not just apparent authority.

You are wrong about this. In another thread I have posted case law that is applicable to this issue. When the property owner calls the police, the police have the apparent authority to give notice and to arrest the trespasser.
IANAL, but if one wants to add their perspective I would welcome it.

[thetexan]

Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

[SlowDave]

I'm confused.....for the passed few weeks, probably longer, I have read an awful lot of posts about proper wording, letter size and such about both .06 and .07 signs. IIRC, a lot of posters were saying walk on in if signage is not 100% correct. Now, everyone seems to be all riled up because someone did just that.

Like I have said several times, if the business knows enough to include the numbers 30.06 and or 30.07 in any kind of sign, they don't want guns in their business. Why would you want to patronize a business that does not want a law abiding, licensed gun carrier in their establishment?

For CC, walking past an invalid sign has no consequences.

For OC, walking past an invalid sign invites both verbal notice AND an encounter with law enforcement.

On your last point, we agree. No guns, no money.

And for open carry, the only thing achieved by disregarding the incorrect signage is to help the store manager recognize that he needs to correct his sign. You could get this done more easily and at less cost (and not losing a day or so in jail) by just bringing them the correct 30.07 sign with mounting hardware. Same result, less pain and agony and cost for you.

Disregarding a non-compliant CC sign is completely different.

[goose]

And for open carry, the only thing achieved by disregarding the incorrect signage is to help the store manager recognize that he needs to correct his sign. You could get this done more easily and at less cost (and not losing a day or so in jail) by just bringing them the correct 30.07 sign with mounting hardware. Same result, less pain and agony and cost for you.

This is both cringe worthy and often true at the same time. "Hi, here is a sign. You don't know this but we both got what we wanted today." Granted if you immediately leave there shouldn't be a ride involved but the sentiment is true.

[mojo84]

I can't believe this argument over a scenario that didn't even happens is still going on.

Good, constructive arguments can be very illustrative. This one brings up some good points and is staying civil.

I'm certainly no expert and lots of the replies present a perspective I didn't know.

But some are still debating over specifics of this situation which are fictitious. I'm glad you find it informative.

[WildBill]

Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

An apartment manager has a superior right to the property against a non-tenant.
Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

[mreed911]

Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

An apartment manager has a superior right to the property against a non-tenant.
Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

Key word: non-tenant.

[baldeagle]

Can you cite some of that case law please.

tex

An apartment manager has a superior right to the property against a non-tenant.
Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/twelf ... /6374.html

Key word: non-tenant.

Key word: Further. Don't misread case law.

[mreed911]

Key word: Further. Don't misread case law.

But this case isn't on point with your claim that police have apparent authority by virtue of being called.

Specifically, here, a police officer lived in the complex in exchange for providing security services and was explicitly vested with authority.

There's nothing on point here about apparent authority at all, and it addresses a narrow example of a non-tenant with no specific rights of access, etc.

[baldeagle]

Key word: Further. Don't misread case law.

But this case isn't on point with your claim that police have apparent authority by virtue of being called.

Specifically, here, a police officer lived in the complex in exchange for providing security services and was explicitly vested with authority.

There's nothing on point here about apparent authority at all, and it addresses a narrow example of a non-tenant with no specific rights of access, etc.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with reading case law. This is most certainly on point.

Further, an apartment manager can delegate to security personnel or other agents the authority
to exclude people from the property. State v. Jackson, 849 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.);

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

[mreed911]

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

[baldeagle]

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

Care to cite the law for that?

[mreed911]

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

Care to cite the law for that?

You can't possibly be asking me to prove a negative.

Look how carefully the court addressed the authority here, noting that it was specifically granted. That's a major point in upholding the conviction.

[WildBill]

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

Care to cite the law for that?

You can't possibly be asking me to prove a negative.

Look how carefully the court addressed the authority here, noting that it was specifically granted. That's a major point in upholding the conviction.

The court addressed the legal issues relevant to the appeal. There is no requirement to perform "an affirmative step for such delegation".
If you read the case law, the fact that the LEO lived on the property was not part of the of facts in the trial so it had no bearing on the outcome of the trial or the subsequent appeal.
Basically the non-tenant [or visitor] has no right to claim authority since they have no legal right or claim to access to the property in which they have no interest.
Any other person, such as a tenant, employee, manager, security guard or LEO has more apparent authority than the person who is trespassing.
That person has apparent authority to tell the person to leave. If they don't they can be arrested.
Once you actually understand the concept, it's pretty simple.

[mojo84]

Substitute "anyone" for "security personnel or other agents", and the sense of the sentence is identical. An apartment manager can delegate to whomever he desires the authority to exclude people from his property. The same applies to an property manager or owner.

Yes, but the mere act of calling the police does not, in and of it self, confer authority. An affirmative step is required for such delegation.

IF your point is valid, what if the cop approached the complainant that called which is an employee and told the officer he does not want the person open carrying? That provides the delegation of apparent authority.

Isn't it typical that a cop seeks out the persona that called when they first come on a scene such as the one in this fictitious scenario?