prosecution over impromper 30.06 postings

[srothstein]

Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.) Yes, I know the argument that all LEO's are always "on duty," but that's a sham. If they are "on duty" 24 hrs. a day, then their agencies owe them a bunch of unpaid overtime, the city/county has potential liability for all of their actions, worker's comp. benefits are available "always," etc.

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

Charles,

The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction. This applies at all times. This is where the 24 hour on duty concept comes from (and why many officers live outside the cities they serve).

As a result of this law, there have been cases where the city has had liability applied to them for either the officer's actions or the workman's comp liability for the officer getting hurt. Probably the best example I know of off-hand for the liability is Off. Smith (IIRC?) in San Antonio a few years back. He was working off-duty for Dillard's and ended up killing a Mexican citizen in an incident on New Year's Day. Dillard's was sued for the use of force and SAPD was required to step in and assume the case and liability (which they won).

[dihappy]

thanks

[nitrogen]

The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction.

How does this jive with the surpreme court rulings that state that the police have no responsibility to protect people?

[frankie_the_yankee]

The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction.

How does this jive with the surpreme court rulings that state that the police have no responsibility to protect people?

Courts have ruled that police have no legal obligation to protect any given individual at any time when they might need it. This is simply in recognition of the fact that the police cannot be everywhere they would need to be at every time they would need to be there when any given person needs protection.

That is a far different matter than when a citizen happens to need protection and a cop happens to be present at the time. By department policy if nothing else, it is the sworn officer's duty to protect the citizen if he can, by any means necessary.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.) Yes, I know the argument that all LEO's are always "on duty," but that's a sham. If they are "on duty" 24 hrs. a day, then their agencies owe them a bunch of unpaid overtime, the city/county has potential liability for all of their actions, worker's comp. benefits are available "always," etc.

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

Charles,

The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction. This applies at all times. This is where the 24 hour on duty concept comes from (and why many officers live outside the cities they serve).

As a result of this law, there have been cases where the city has had liability applied to them for either the officer's actions or the workman's comp liability for the officer getting hurt. Probably the best example I know of off-hand for the liability is Off. Smith (IIRC?) in San Antonio a few years back. He was working off-duty for Dillard's and ended up killing a Mexican citizen in an incident on New Year's Day. Dillard's was sued for the use of force and SAPD was required to step in and assume the case and liability (which they won).

I know some departments say their officers are "on duty" 24 hrs a day, but I don't know of any statute that requires this. I also don't know of any statute that requires the individual officer to take enforcement action if a crime is committed in their presence and he officer is not "on the clock." I'm not saying such a statute doesn't exist, just that I've never seen them.

But as for my position on private property, the intent behind the change was to deprive all private property owners of the ability to exclude any armed LEO from their property, even when they are not on official business. This is true whether the officer is in his jurisdiction or not. There is no justification for that.

Chas.

[GrillKing]

It seems to me all the law says is that it is not a criminal offense for a peace officer to pass a 'no guns' sign. An officer can still be asked to leave for the same reasons anyone else could be: you are too loud or I just don't like you. If they don't leave and are not on official business, they would be tresspassing.

I can't believe a LEO can stay on private property if asked to leave unless they were there for official police business. It's just that it is not criminal for them to pass the sign. It seems that w/o this legislation, passing a 'no guns' sign would be tresspassing for going to lunch, stopping by the dry cleaners or WalMart on the way home, etc. Almost no one has a problem with LEOs and I have to believe most 'no guns' signs are not intended for LEOs.

I'm missing how this is bad....

[seamusTX]

Well, just to be pedantic:

Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 14.03(b) A peace officer shall arrest, without a warrant, a person the peace officer has probable cause to believe has committed an offense under Section 25.07, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order), or Section 38.112, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order issued on basis of sexual assault), if the offense is committed in the presence of the peace officer.
(c) If reasonably necessary to verify an allegation of a violation of a protective order or of the commission of an offense involving family violence, a peace officer shall remain at the scene of the investigation to verify the allegation and to prevent the further commission of the violation or of family violence.

All the other laws authorizing arrest use the word may.

Logic dictates that a peace officer can be in only one place and do only one thing at a time, so he may have to chose between situations to intervene in. For example, if an officer is attending a car wreck and sees someone run a red light, he can't leave the scene to chase the offender.

- Jim

[Photoman]

Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.)

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

In my mind, once the private property owner permits public (commercial) access to his property, he relinquishes certain "rights" to refuse. The "right" to ban legally carried firearms, by police or CHL, is one that the property owner loses (if he ever had it to begin with - one could argue that self-defense is a natural right, inalienable and not to be suppressed by any man).

[Photoman]

But as for my position on private property, the intent behind the change was to deprive all private property owners of the ability to exclude any armed LEO from their property, even when they are not on official business. This is true whether the officer is in his jurisdiction or not. There is no justification for that.

Chas.

Does this apply to private, non-commercial property?

[Renegade]

I know some departments say their officers are "on duty" 24 hrs a day, but I don't know of any statute that requires this. I also don't know of any statute that requires the individual officer to take enforcement action if a crime is committed in their presence and he officer is not "on the clock." I'm not saying such a statute doesn't exist, just that I've never seen them.

I am also unaware of any statute or Dept policy that authorizes its officer to drink alcohol on duty, sleep on duty, not answer dispatch calls while on duty, and even leave their jurisdiction while on duty. Officers do all of these things, but we call it "off-duty".

The "on-duty 24/7" is a complete sham.

[txinvestigator]

Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.)

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

In my mind, once the private property owner permits public (commercial) access to his property, he relinquishes certain "rights" to refuse. The "right" to ban legally carried firearms, by police or CHL, is one that the property owner loses (if he ever had it to begin with - one could argue that self-defense is a natural right, inalienable and not to be suppressed by any man).

Self-defense does not include the carry of any weapon you choose.

What other rights should a private property owner relinquish? The right to sell whatever product or service he chooses? The right to want people to dress a certain way, behave a certain way, etc? How about the right to stay as long as you want?

Oh wait, these are not rights, are they? And your right to swing your fist in the air ends just before my nose. The "right" to carry a gun applies to government restriction.

The "me" attitude is getting more and more pervasive.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It seems to me all the law says is that it is not a criminal offense for a peace officer to pass a 'no guns' sign. An officer can still be asked to leave for the same reasons anyone else could be: you are too loud or I just don't like you. If they don't leave and are not on official business, they would be tresspassing.

I can't believe a LEO can stay on private property if asked to leave unless they were there for official police business. It's just that it is not criminal for them to pass the sign. It seems that w/o this legislation, passing a 'no guns' sign would be tresspassing for going to lunch, stopping by the dry cleaners or WalMart on the way home, etc. Almost no one has a problem with LEOs and I have to believe most 'no guns' signs are not intended for LEOs.

I'm missing how this is bad....

This is precisely what was argued in favor of the revision to TPC §30.05. It was a stand-alone bill that drew a great deal of criticism (I can't recall the bill number) and the author didn't push it. Instead, the provisions were added to another bill and it passed.

Unfortunately, TPC §30.05(g) is very broad. It makes the entire Section (i.e. all of TPC §30.05) "not app[licable] to" LEO's. It's not limited solely to crossing signs. It does not shield a LEO from TPC §30.05, if the basis is anything other than carrying a handgun. CHL's are also afforded this protection from TPC §30.05. The obvious difference is that a property owner can prohibit CHLs from entering the property by using TPC §30.06, but there is no counterpart for LEO's. So the bottom line is that private property owners cannot prohibit any off-duty LEO from entering his home armed. That's absurd. (Yes, you can lie about why you are excluding them, but this discussion is about the state of the law, not how to circumvent it.)

Note also that the exclusionary language found in TPC §30.05 is different for CHLs and for LEOs. CHLs have a "defense to prosecution" while LEO section reads "does not apply . . ." In truth, there is no distinction since case law holds that there are only "defenses" and "exceptions" and any wording other than "exception" is a defense. Nevertheless, the Legislature at least tried to give CHLs a more difficult task of defending against a TPC §30.05 charge than is faced by a LEO.

Chas.

Here is the language

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

. . .

(g) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
  in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other
  weapon was forbidden; and
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
  officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
  state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
  Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
  special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
  official duty while carrying the weapon.

[HadEmAll]

I took my mother to a medical procedure the other day. The facility had 2 entrances to the same lobby, doors facing each other across a sidewalk. Using one would have your back directly to the other. The doors themselves were about 20 feet apart.

One set of doors had the proper configuration of the 30.06 sign, the other did not. It was definitely possible to enter the non-signed door without even looking at the other, which I did after wiping the sight of the other from my mind.

[rb4browns]

I took my mother to a medical procedure the other day. The facility had 2 entrances to the same lobby, doors facing each other across a sidewalk. Using one would have your back directly to the other. The doors themselves were about 20 feet apart.

One set of doors had the proper configuration of the 30.06 sign, the other did not. It was definitely possible to enter the non-signed door without even looking at the other, which I did after wiping the sight of the other from my mind.

How many fellow CHLers wink at knowlingly disregarding legal 30.06 signs yet rail against illegal immigrants simply because they, "broke the law" to get to America. I'm hard pressed to think of a hospital as a place where one has a compelling reason to carry when there is a 30.06 posted.

[seamusTX]

I'm hard pressed to think of a hospital as a place where one has a compelling reason to carry when there is a 30.06 posted.

It's not the hospital that's the problem. Many hospitals are in bad neighborhoods and have remote parking.

I am not advocating illegal carry, but I want to point out that there is a real problem, moreso than working in an office or something like that.

- Jim