TexasCHLforum.com

mreed911 wrote:

gunman40 wrote:what gets me mad is that we have to follow the law as it is written, but businesses with improper signs do not. DPS said in our renewal class 2 years ago that they will not police the signs. maybe we should work on that next session; if the signs are not legal then we do not have to abide by the non legal signs. my 2 cents.

If the signs aren't legal, you DON'T have to abide by the signs. Period.

However, unlike 30.06, where nobody except you knows, with 30.07 walking past an invalid sign will almost always get either a verbal notice (which is valid) or interaction with the police (as detailed in post 1 of this thread).

What would be interesting is a CIVIL fine to those who post invalid signs and call the police department to enforce them, much like people who don't have alarm permits but police respond to their alarms. Post an invalid sign and call the police to enforce it, they will, but it'll cost you $100.

That would at LEAST get correct signs up, which for 30.07 doesn't "hurt" the status quo. In some cases they might come down because the owner doesn't want to post something large and conspicuous enough to be legal.

Posting an improper sign is not a crime. Filing a false police report is a crime. When a store owner calls the police to report a MWAG and the fact is that there is no valid 30.07 sign (or 30.06 if the owner somehow noticed a CC), then the police should be addressing the store owner who has committed a crime (false police report) and not the law abiding citizen who has committed no crime. Instead of acting as an agent for the criminal by providing effective notice, how about arresting the criminal who called in a false police report?

mreed911 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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.

Lots of places either place signs that give blanket (express) authority or have someone other than the owner working who has "apparent authority" meaning the officer isn't required to validate with the owner that the person controlling the property has given them authority, etc.

I completely agree with everything you are saying in this post. I think I may not be communicating my point clearly enough.

In the (possibly hypothetical) case that started this thread, there was no sign giving anyone express authority to issue a trespass warning on behalf of the property owner. I am guessing that there likely was a store manager or someone else present who had apparent (and possibly also real) authority to speak on behalf of the owner. If that person had given verbal notice, then I would agree 100% that a valid trespass warning had been given. If that person verbally agreed to pay me $100 for sweeping the floor of the store, I would think that the owner would be liable to pay me $100.

What I am questioning is how the LEO could have had apparent authority to speak on behalf of the owner. If the LEO had promised the OP $100 for sweeping the floor would the owner be liable to pay that $100? Or to use another example, if there was a valid 30.06 sign there could a rogue LEO tell the OP that he can carry past the sign, since the LEO has apparent authority to speak on behalf of the property owner?

mreed911 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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.

ARS2nd wrote:"

And, if you think it has to be someone from the business, it doesn't

(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;


The police DEFINITELY have that 'apparent' authority.

Not to be overly technical, but not necessarily. Why did the police respond? Was it a customer complaint or did the manager call? Who put the sign up? Was it from corporate (the business owner) or was it put up by a manager or other employee without authority of the business owner? If a business owner called the police, clearly the responding officers would have the apparent authority.

Having said that, I don't suggest "picking a fight" based on technicalities. If you innocently missed the sign that didn't meet the specs of the law, and the cops are there to arrest you for trespass, well, that is a whole other story.

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?