Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

If a concealed carry licensee intentionally enters a store (armed) that has a CPZ sign, does a store employee have to ask the concealed carry licensee to leave, and the CHL have to refuse, to be guilty of criminal trespass under ORC 2923.126? Is there any case law or is this mere speculation?

Is the situation changed if a LEO sees the CHL armed in the CPZ?

There was definitely at least one case in which CHL'er had been asked to leave by owner or employee (maybe the latter), refused. Police were called, they asked/ordered him to vamoose, again he refused. He then left in bracelets. And eventually was found guilty of trespass. It was quite a spell ago so searching it up would be tough unless someone recalls more particulars.

According to discussions we've had here, in your hypothetical where an LEO is on site already, the licensee could be arrested on the spot. But as you know, normally all but the most hard-nosed cops try to reason with such folks at least a little bit before getting out the manacles.

This happened in Cornfield County. Big box store employee asked and he refused. Store loss prevention employee asked, and he refused. Deputy Sheriff asked, and he refused. Arrested for trespassing.

Sidebar: he had a hell of a time getting his weapons back from the county. He contended the signage was worded improperly. Friend of mine defended him, but to no avail.

I can't think of any case law with regards to CHL and what must first be done. However, there is plenty of case law on criminal trespass and what constitutes knowingly, which is a big element of criminal trespass. If I think if this post later I'll post what I can find, but there are allot of good case law basics in the Ohio public defenders website and they break it down by orc code.

propertymanager wrote:If a concealed carry licensee intentionally enters a store (armed) that has a CPZ sign, does a store employee have to ask the concealed carry licensee to leave, and the CHL have to refuse, to be guilty of criminal trespass under ORC 2923.126? Is there any case law or is this mere speculation?

Is the situation changed if a LEO sees the CHL armed in the CPZ?

It depends on whether the sign is "conspicuous." State law says it has to be "conspicuously posted," and to my knowledge there isn't any jurisprudence which clarifies the meaning of that term. So if someone were to ignore the signage, and could make an argument that the signage was inconspicuous, then it might be necessary for someone to ask the individual to leave as a prerequisite to a criminal trespass charge.

SeanC wrote:

propertymanager wrote:If a concealed carry licensee intentionally enters a store (armed) that has a CPZ sign, does a store employee have to ask the concealed carry licensee to leave, and the CHL have to refuse, to be guilty of criminal trespass under ORC 2923.126? Is there any case law or is this mere speculation?

Is the situation changed if a LEO sees the CHL armed in the CPZ?

It depends on whether the sign is "conspicuous." State law says it has to be "conspicuously posted," and to my knowledge there isn't any jurisprudence which clarifies the meaning of that term. So if someone were to ignore the signage, and could make an argument that the signage was inconspicuous, then it might be necessary for someone to ask the individual to leave as a prerequisite to a criminal trespass charge.

It seems to me that I heard of at least one trial judge who would not convict if the person had not been personally asked to leave. I don't know if that is true.

By the same token, if there is evidence that someone saw the sign or otherwise had actual knowledge, and purposely ignored it, hoping to argue that the sign was not posted in a "conspicuous location," I think think there is a high likelihood, not only of conviction, but also of a brief jail stint.

I'am of the opinion people that are arrested for this are jerks in the first place. What about '' i'am sorry sir i did not see the sign, i'am leaving now have a nice day'' end of the drama in most case's.

steves 50de wrote:I'am of the opinion people that are arrested for this are jerks in the first place. What about '' i'am sorry sir i did not see the sign, i'am leaving now have a nice day'' end of the drama in most case's.

That is true in a great many cases. Unfortunately, this tends to be a factor which become hard-wired during childhood.

Here's the case that I think pertains the most to this....

State v. McMechan (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 261 -- Headnote: "Some form of communication of any restrictions on the use of land to those entering it is essential to a successful trespass prosecution under R.C. 2911.21(A)." Miami University student was arrested in a park posted with signs restricting use to daylight hours, but had not seen the signs. Court rejected trial judge's notion that the defendant should have gone looking for signs which might have restricted use of the park.

This doesn't really deal with the inform before leaving section, but pretty much says you must know of restrictions to entrance and you don't need to go searching for said restrictions. However, if you enter a door and it's blatantly obvious, it may be upheld without anything further.

JediSkipdogg wrote:Here's the case that I think pertains the most to this....

State v. McMechan (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 261 -- Headnote: "Some form of communication of any restrictions on the use of land to those entering it is essential to a successful trespass prosecution under R.C. 2911.21(A)." Miami University student was arrested in a park posted with signs restricting use to daylight hours, but had not seen the signs. Court rejected trial judge's notion that the defendant should have gone looking for signs which might have restricted use of the park.

This doesn't really deal with the inform before leaving section, but pretty much says you must know of restrictions to entrance and you don't need to go searching for said restrictions. However, if you enter a door and it's blatantly obvious, it may be upheld without anything further.

Whether or not the person saw it is a question for the trier of fact, and that will usually not be disturbed on appeal. However, that case does illustrate one issue regarding the private posting of land outside a building; unless it is fenced with a sign at every entrance, it's rather difficult to enforce postings on land, and personal communication of notice is almost essential.

And remember, "conspicuously posted" and "knowingly" are separate issues here.

I entered a skating rink in Grove City that had a CPZ sign on their front door, right about chest level...VERY easy to see.

Unfortunately, someone held the door open for me.

There were no other CPZ signs.

I didn't actually see the sign until I needed to get something from my car and started to re-enter the building.