^^^^^^^^^^^bottom line it was not a legally posted sign unless poster was verbal directed to leave there should have been no problem. The law clearly defines what a legal 30.06/30.07 sign is.
This is correct.
While I certainly understand that even a non-compliant sign conveys the wishes of the establishment, per the letter of the law, a non-compliant sign has no force of law. Only when asked to leave by someone with apparent authority does the position of the establishment become clear and have force of law (and only then IF the actor refuses to leave).
The police should have NO part in asking/demanding the actor leave, that is not their job. That is the job of the establishment. ONLY if the actor refuses to leave....has a trespass been committed, thus opening the situation for the need of law enforcement.
IF establishments learn they can post small non-compliant signs and then just a call the police to handle the rest, then you can bet they will do so.
Quite naturally....law enforcement will grow weary of this and bad things are bound to come of it. INSTEAD, establishments should be made to comply with the clear definition of the signage required. That way....if someone enters, they are clearly and IMMEDIATELY trespassing.
As far as continuing to enter a place of business (displaying a non-compliant sign) is concerned, I think that is fool hardy at best. But it is yet unclear whether or not the courts would look at the entry as a 'Separate Event' each and every time (requiring verbal notice each time) or if they would fall on the side of the Merchant....who will claim their intent should have been clear the first time.
I know what I would do, but these things are definitely not black and white at this juncture.
