TexasCHLforum.com

That was the era of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. Few writers of speakers have that command of English today.

- Jim

LITTLE SANDY HUNTING & FISHING v. BERRY was a real-estate case. Texas and probably every other state has a completely separate body of law for real estate (Property Code).

What that decision says (AFAICT) is that if person A is living in a house and has what appears to be a valid title to it, and B shows up claiming to own the land, B cannot simply evict A by force. They have to settle the issue in court.

I can't find the text of RAY v. DYER, but from the part you quoted, it also seems to be a real-estate case.

Trespassing in violation of PC 30.05 is a completely different matter. That kind of trespass occurs when someone enters land, a building, or a vehicle without any legal claim of right.

Look at PC 9.41 again. It says, "A person in lawful possession ... is justified in using force against another ..."

In the case of a church or any other public place, there is rarely a question about whether the trespasser owns the property or has a claim on it or permission to be there.

(There have been a few interesting cases where the ownership of churches has been contested by members of the congregation, but that is not relevant here.)

- Jim

casingpoint wrote:I find no authorization for forcing a criminal trespasser to leave a premises, either without effecting an arrest of the trespasser or after an arrest.

I already showed it to you.

If you think the system doesn't work that way, raise a ruckus in a bar that has a bouncer. When the bouncer throws you out, try to press charges.

Or light up a cigar in a mall food court and wait for Gecko45 to arrive.

- Jim

Arresting for criminal trespass has always been a dilemma. If you tell the person to leave, and he doesn't, and you then restrain him, he no longer has the option of leaving.

Police officers here have told me that they do not arrest for CT on open land or in public places unless the violator has already received a written warning in a prior incident on the same property. The reason is that judges always dismiss simple CT with a warning. The courts do not have the resources to try every class C misdemeanor, and apparently judges think that spending a night in jail after the arrest is enough punishment.

However, the routine dismissal of such cases doesn't mean that it's OK to commit CT. I'm sure all of us have had the experience of someone poking around our property. It's irritating to be on the receiving end.

- Jim

casingpoint wrote:

If you do not leave, they can use the minimum necessary level of force to make you leave

I seriously doubt that. Is that actually authorized by statute or common law in Texas?

Sure.

PC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;...

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
...
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

The bottom line is that if you are on private property that is generally open to the public, such as a church, shopping mall, etc., the owner or an agent of the owner can tell you to leave at any time for any or no reason. If you disagree, you can complain and possibly sue later.

The areas where the property owner or security guard could get in trouble are excluding people because of sex, age, race, national origin, religion, or disability. However, there are exceptions to all these things. Businesses can have upper and lower age limits. Some places (gyms, for example) can be men-only or women-only. Churches can prohibit all but their own members.

- Jim

If they have the authority to tell you to leave (which I assume all security guards do), you are obligated to leave. It's the same as you in your home. You don't need a reason to tell someone to leave, and he is committing criminal trespass if he doesn't.

IMHO, resisting would not be a good idea. Someone who resists a security guard's request to leave could be charged with criminal trespass and assault. And if you are armed when you commit criminal trespass, it's a class A misdemeanor.

My attitude would be that if they don't want me there, they don't need my money or other contributions.

You don't have a legal right to enter or remain in a church without the consent of someone in authority. I know there was a time when tradition was that the doors were always open to everyone, but that was long ago. My church quit doing leaving the doors open in the 1960s because of theft and vandalism.

As usual, IANAL, etc.

- Jim

They have whatever authority their employer (the pastor or church board in this case) gives them, within the limits of the law.

In general, they have the authority to tell you to follow the rules of the place (for example, not taking in church) or to leave. If you do not leave, they can use the minimum necessary level of force to make you leave. If they see you steal something, they can restrain you long enough to determine whether you are carrying stolen property.

The last item is extremely touchy. Stores have been sued successfully for millions of dollars for unlawful restraint, assault, and other damages related to false theft accusations.

Commissioned, armed security guards can use deadly force with the same justifications as anyone else.

Security guards cannot arrest for misdemeanors, AFAIK.

The incident you described is unacceptable. It should be reported to the "management."

- Jim