Starbucks arrests: Who gets to decide whether youre a patron or a trespasser?

[EffieBlack]

72. It is you who is having trouble comprehending,Boo, so let me break it down for you again

You are correct - on its face, the trespass law does not require uniformity in order to be enforced.

However, this particular trespass law contains several affirmative defenses to a trespassing charge that essentially inoculate someone from being deemed a defiant trespasser. One of them applies to “premises {that} were at the time open to members of the public” where the person “complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises." if a person complies with “all lawful conditions” of occupancy, they are not guilty of “defiant trespassing” under this statute.

In this instance, the only basis for the trespassing charge was the manager’s assertion that they failed to make a purchase. In order for the men to be trespassing, purchasing something must be a lawful condition of remaining in the restaurant. And to be a “condition,” it must apply to all members of the public wishing to enter and remain, not just a random few.

Normally, conditions are set forth in writing and provided in a conspicuous place so that all members of the public are on notice of it before entering and while occupying the premises. “No shoes, not shirt, no service” signs are an example. A restaurant could still have such a policy, even it it’s not posted. But if they try to eject one customer for not wearing a shirt while a table full of bare-chested men remains, the police will be hard-pressed to arrest that one man and charge him with a crime while allowing the other men to stay. This is not necessarily because the cops decided the manager is a racist (all of the men could be white) but because the fact that shirtless men are eating and drinking unaccosted in the restaurant suggests that wearing a shirt is not actually a condition of occupying the premises. If it’s not a condition, the man has not violated a condition and he is, therefore, not trespassing.

By the same token, before arresting anyone in Starbucks for violating the trespass statute, the cops needed to confirm they had probable cause to believe these men had violated the statute.

The manager was very specific about what she thought they violated. She said they did not comply with the lawful condition of occupancy, i.e., making a purchase. So the cops had to determine whether there was probable cause to find the men had violated this condition, so they first had to confirm what the condition was. Because this Starbucks did not have a written or posted notice or documentation that a purchase was a condition for the public to occupythe premises, they had to use other readily-available evidence to establish whether such a condition existed.

For example, if other patrons said, “Oh, yeah - they made me buy something before I could even sit down,” that would be pretty strong proof. But the opposite happened. There was not only no evidence that any such condition was applied to the public, several people said it was explicitly NOT applied, that they were there without making a purchase and were never called into question.

This is crystal clear evidence that a purchase was NOT a condition for use of the property and since the men couldn’t violate a condition that doesn’t exist, and there was no allegation they failed to comply with any other condition, they were on the premises legally and were not trespassing under the statute.

The bottom line is that the point I’m making here isn’t about uneven application of the trespass statute. This is a definitial issue relating to probable cause for the arrest. If an essential element of the charge is the existence of a particular condition - and a condition is only a condition if it is applied uniformly and consistently, otherwise, it’s not a condition at all - then the fact that it’s not applied across the board to all members of the public is very germane. And if the only justification for claiming the men violated the trespass law is that they failed to comply with a condition of entry that turns out to be no condition at all, then there s no crime and there should have been no arrest.