wbwood wrote:
If he was told to leave and refused to, he could indeed be charged with trespassing. Is a business and they have the right to ask anyone to leave and not be on the premises. Just as a store can ban you from their property. If you do not leave or return within the ban period, you can be charged with trespassing.
LEO's are not there to play judge and jury (as I am an LEO). They may try to reach an amicable conclusion, but in the end if the business doesn't want the person there, then the LEO has the duty to remove the person from the property. Normally there will be paperwork completed, such as a ban from property in which the LEO will use to charge the person for trespassing.
I appreciate what you are saying, but as you know nothing is that black and white. I wish it were. That said, LEOs have to play judge and jury far more than I think they would want to, wouldn't you say so in your experience? What you are saying in your response that as a LEO you would put out someone, in this case a camper who had a reasonable expectation of service and was refused, because you'd side with the business simply because the business said they didn't want the customer there? That seems a bit flimsy, and in my mind you would be aiding the business in fraud by automatically siding with them. That's where the judgement comes in. I'm not saying you'd be right or wrong with either outcome, and neither do I envy you dealing with stuff like this. But it seems to me that as LEO you can see when a business is breaking the law as much as you can when the average citizen does. You aren't going to run a person off the property until you ascertain all the facts you can and then make that judgement on how to handle it. You have as much power to make the business comply with something as you do to make the customer leave.
I think the hardest part about discussing this is that neither of us has all the facts. I'm just going by what was presented.
peaches&cream wrote:
It's amazing how things get added to post by people that have no idea of the circumstances. Nowhere in any of the OP posts do they say "we paid a deposit". They only state they made a reservation. We have made many reservations without paying a "deposit". We had reservations in Ca. for the week of the 4th and they did not ask for a deposit. Could be the reason for "no deposit'. Easier to refuse admittance if not wanted.
Excellent point. I had to go back and re-read the OP. I was sure he said something about a deposit. That really does change things doesn't it? Then again, I think "no deposit needed" is an exception rather than a common practice.
