Can a cop just park on private property in a bar parking lot without owners consent?

[justalayman]

Maybe a friendly chat with the Chief about the impact the officers are having on business, and, perhaps any unprofessional comments or actions by the officers. But, arguing that they do not have a right to be there is a loser.

Be reasonable and logical. And, you may have to take steps to improve communications with the police including, perhaps, a policy where YOU call the cops if there are problems.

I have been looking at the laws of your state Carl and honestly I cannot find anything that would allow the actions you describe. While there is a right to inspect upon demand, abuse of that right or "hanging around" when not in an official act is not included in the rights afforded the police. As well, unless there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, I cannot see you having any justification to demand to be allowed to remain if not wanted. From everything I have read so far, once you no longer are acting in an official capacity to inspect the premises or investigating a situation based on reasonable suspicion, you no longer have the right to act under the color of law and demand to be allowed to remain on the premises.

any laws to allow you to just "hang around"?

 

[CdwJava]

I have been looking at the laws of your state Carl and honestly I cannot find anything that would allow the actions you describe. While there is a right to inspect upon demand, abuse of that right or "hanging around" when not in an official act is not included in the rights afforded the police. As well, unless there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, I cannot see you having any justification to demand to be allowed to remain if not wanted. From everything I have read so far, once you no longer are acting in an official capacity to inspect the premises or investigating a situation based on reasonable suspicion, you no longer have the right to act under the color of law and demand to be allowed to remain on the premises.

any laws to allow you to just "hang around"?

As long as the officer is in a place where he has a right to be for a lawful purpose, he can remain. If he is there solely to HARASS someone, that's a different story. But, we can wander in, hang out, inspect, chat, patrol, and most anything else with no specific articulated cause. We do that with some frequency at bars and clubs out here. There were times where we would hang out in problem nightclubs just watching the comings and goings. No law prohibited this.

And no bar owner is going to fight the cops on this. Bars and clubs are highly regulated and if one wanted to screw with a bar owner, it really would not be tough to do.

The only bars or nightclubs that I have come across that try to challenge our presence have been ones that were engaged in nefarious activity anyway. And they lost every time.

 

[justalayman]

CdwJava;2962472]As long as the officer is in a place where he has a right to be for a lawful purpose, he can remain.

but unless acting in the capacity of an officer and in the process of a justified investigation, if the proprietor does not want him on the premises, he is no longer there for a lawful purpose but is a trespasser.

And no bar owner is going to fight the cops on this. Bars and clubs are highly regulated and if one wanted to screw with a bar owner, it really would not be tough to do.

ah, the old blackmail threat. I thought you were better than that Carl.

 

[Captian Picard]

but unless acting in the capacity of an officer and in the process of a justified investigation, if the proprietor does not want him on the premises, he is no longer there for a lawful purpose but is a trespasser..

Even if he is there acting in an investigation they still cannot be there if the owner tells them to move along. The police can stay on public property all they like (like anyone else) but people do not have to welcome them onto their property.

I would NEVER allow a cop onto my land, especially for an investigation that would subject me to risk !

And why allow them on your land at all? Anyone who does better know all the EPA regulations regarding land .. and nobody knows them all.

Contrary to what the fascists government employees tell us, our property rights trump any "police investigation".

 

[justalayman]

Even if he is there acting in an investigation they still cannot be there if the owner tells them to move along. The police can stay on public property all they like (like anyone else) but people do not have to welcome them onto their property.

I would NEVER allow a cop onto my land, especially for an investigation that would subject me to risk !

And why allow them on your land at all? Anyone who does better know all the EPA regulations regarding land .. and nobody knows them all.

Contrary to what the fascists government employees tell us, our property rights trump any "police investigation".

actually, the police do have a lot of latitude in a bar (in California anyway). Per the law, even a cop can investigate the business at anytime, without a warrant but once that investigation is complete, I do not see any justification to be able to remain within the premises against the proprietors permission.

I would also see repetitive (legal) investigations without justification as harassment.

and actually public property is no different than private property. You have no inherent rights to be on public property without permission.

and don't confuse public property with private property open to the public. Two very different situations.

 

[CdwJava]

but unless acting in the capacity of an officer and in the process of a justified investigation, if the proprietor does not want him on the premises, he is no longer there for a lawful purpose but is a trespasser.

You really think that the officer cannot come up with a lawful purpose to be there? There is no case I am aware of that says x minutes is okay and X+1 minutes is harassment. We have laws against capricious acts (Harassment) already. But no law that covers a strict definition of how long we can stay in a place open to the public, covered by both a business and liquor license allowing inspection of the premises, and in which there are many reasons to be in the first place.

Now, if a business owner wants to get the cops out of there and he wants to try and compel them to leave, he can try ... but, he is going to have to prove that the actions of the officers in the agency are harassment and they are not engaged in a lawful act and he is likely going to have to go to court to seek an injunction if a call to the Chief doesn't resolve the problem. That's gonna be tough, but I suppose it's possible. And, again, what bar or nightclub owner would want to do that ... such a thing is like sending up a flare guaranteeing very well documented and articulated inspections in the future with any infraction being addressed.

If you can show me any case law that states how long an officer in my state may remain in a bar or nightclub, I'd be happy to read it. Until then, when there is a need, we will remain in and around these businesses where problems occur (calls for service and other activity permitting).

ah, the old blackmail threat. I thought you were better than that Carl.

I'm not saying I would do it. But, if you have officers that are engaged in capricious acts already, do you really think they would take a pass on legal retaliation? I don't have to act capriciously, I can easily articulate cause for every minute I am in a bar even if it is a half hour or more. It really is not all that difficult if the bar has any amount of problems at all. Yes, it might be difficult to hang at the dining bar at Denny's all because they might serve a few Bud Lites there, but in most bars and nightclubs, there are ample reasons to maintain a presence if we can afford the time.

Bars are huge sources of problems - some more than others.

Even if he is there acting in an investigation they still cannot be there if the owner tells them to move along. The police can stay on public property all they like (like anyone else) but people do not have to welcome them onto their property.

Not always true on business property open to the public and subject to the same level of regulation and inspection that a bar is. If you want to have a bar or certain other businesses, you can be subject to their presence whether you specifically want it or not.

I recall an adult bookstore that demanded we sign in whenever we entered the premises ... what they were doing was trying to slow s down because they had guys using the one dollar movie booths to pleasure themselves. We just blew past the counter and into the back where the customers were ... shall we say, "exposed." No, we were not legally required to check in or stop because the clerk asked us to. Darn that conditional use permit!

I would NEVER allow a cop onto my land, especially for an investigation that would subject me to risk !

If it is your residence or private property not open to the public, you would certainly have evry right to do that (absent exigent circumstances by the cops).

Contrary to what the fascists government employees tell us, our property rights trump any "police investigation".

Thee are exceptions even to the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Sounds like you need some designated "drunk" decoys. Totally sober drivers to stumble out of the bar, drop keys a couple of times, etc....

 

[justalayman]

You really think that the officer cannot come up with a lawful purpose to be there?

for a limited period of time, yes. To allow hanging around; no.

There is no case I am aware of that says x minutes is okay and X+1 minutes is harassment.

well, while not defined quite so precisely, there are decisions that are almost as specific; vehicle searches after requiring a driver to remain on scene while a drug dog is brought to site is one such example.

We have laws against capricious acts (Harassment) already.

but harassment can also be a subjective claim with no true defined time or action. It is determined on a case by case basis.

But no law that covers a strict definition of how long we can stay in a place open to the public, covered by both a business and liquor license allowing inspection of the premises, and in which there are many reasons to be in the first place.

Actually, there is. As long as you are on official business with a justifiable and articulable right, you can stay as long as that reason remains. Once that justification ceases to exist or it has been investigated to exhaustion, remaining on the premises against the proprietors wishes is harassment and abuse of power.

Now, if a business owner wants to get the cops out of there and he wants to try and compel them to leave, he can try ... but, he is going to have to prove that the actions of the officers in the agency are harassment and they are not engaged in a lawful act and he is likely going to have to go to court to seek an injunction if a call to the Chief doesn't resolve the problem. That's gonna be tough, but I suppose it's possible.

I disagree. It becomes obvious if the cop cannot articulate a justification for his presence. Granted it will likely require a court action but I suspect a cop doesn't really want such a claim, especially if the courts agree with the proprietor, on his record. It allows the cops future claims to be disputed and jeopardizes future prosecutions based on that cops claims.

And, again, what bar or nightclub owner would want to do that ... such a thing is like sending up a flare guaranteeing very well documented and articulated inspections in the future with any infraction being addressed.

and again we get into the blackmail scheme used to intimidate the owner into compliance. I am quite surprised at reading you post such an argument.

I don't have to act capriciously, I can easily articulate cause for every minute I am in a bar even if it is a half hour or more. It really is not all that difficult if the bar has any amount of problems at all. Yes, it might be difficult to hang at the dining bar at Denny's all because they might serve a few Bud Lites there, but in most bars and nightclubs, there are ample reasons to maintain a presence if we can afford the time

.Carl, you know I respect you and doubt you would hang around without a valid justification but I suspect you know officers that would act that way as well. While there can be many reasons to continue the presence, there is obviously a limit to claiming a right to be there.

Bars are huge sources of problems - some more than others.

true but just as with any other search, there has to be an articulable claim of right and I have no problem defining a continued presence upon the premises without the owners permission a search. We all know that the 4th amend does limit a search to require a reasonable justification.

I recall an adult bookstore that demanded we sign in whenever we entered the premises ... what they were doing was trying to slow s down because they had guys using the one dollar movie booths to pleasure themselves. We just blew past the counter and into the back where the customers were ... shall we say, "exposed." No, we were not legally required to check in or stop because the clerk asked us to. Darn that conditional use permit!

sounds like there could be articulable reasonable suspicion but once the investigation was completed, your justification to remain has ceased and you could be required to leave though.


Obviously there will always be gray areas in situations such as these but with all actions by the police, there are limits. A bar owner is in a precarious position given the propensity for illegal activity in many such establishments but even given that, there are limits a cop can take in demanding his presence be allowed on private property, even with the laws in place allowing certain searches without a warrant. While I suspect you make an effort to stay on the good side of the law, it is very easy for a cop with less scruples to push the limit to the side of the law one might define as oppressive without justification.

 

[dave33]

Carls reasoning I believe is realistic. I do not believe it to be right, but legally acceptable...Most definately. The cops could come up with 10 thousand reasons to be there. They also have the support of the state/county even federal police and courts.

Ozark sophist, You may have been joking, but that could be the best advice.

 

[CdwJava]

Justalayman, the bottom line is that the officers are not likely to leave solely because the bar owner asks them to. If he could not get some sort of limiting directive from the chief executive of the agency, he would have to convince a court that the actions of the officers are capricious and constitute harassment for no lawful purpose. I suspect that this would be a difficult task unless the officers or the agency were dunderheads, but it would probably be possible if the acts were clearly harassing. I know of no bar or nightclub that has ever taken such an action, and I doubt that any bar owner or nightclub would wish to enter into such a sparring match. I know of strip clubs that have gone there and lost, and they did not have liquor licenses (all nude).

Where I used to work in So. Cal. we DID have one nightclub that did seek court protections from what they saw as law enforcement intrusions and they, too, lost. We had plain clothes people inside the club most every night, and uniformed officers rolled through regularly. It was easy to articulate good cause to be there so often. The club closed after about a year and a half, but that was arguably as a result of embezzlement by one of the partners, poor management, and the fact that one of the owners got popped for assorted criminal activity. There was apparently a reason they did not want the cops there.

If a bar is not a source of problems, the cops probably won't be wasting time there. If it IS a source of problems, it's not hard to articulate cause.

Ideally, we seek to work with the bar owners to mitigate problems. There are ways to develop partnerships with bars and nightclubs to develop a good working relationship and this would largely reduce the need for more consistent "eyes on" by the local coppers. If the bar is policing its own, if you will, then the police may feel little need to show up with some frequency. In my town we have a few bars but only one that causes obvious problems. Ergo, we spend a great deal of time driving by, parking across the street, and wandering through the bar. If there were no problems there (as there are not with the other places in town) we wouldn't be there as often.

Squeaky wheels, and all that.

 

[dave33]

Well, just like everything else, just about any action at the bar ( if written how the police are trained to write ) could be a violation of law. What % of people leaving a bar are legally drunk ? I suspect a very high %. The law allows the police to basically arrest anyone leaving the bar. This is why no bar owner would challenge the police. They could stop everyone leaving and at least detain most. After a tragedy people scream for stricter laws and politicians try to make the voters happy. These laws make it easier for the police to make a case, but it also allows them very wide latitude to basically do what they want.

Even if challenged in court, it would most likely not be successful. Any judge would be hesitant to make a ruling that would hinder the police.

Also, even if the report or reason for staying so long seems ridiculous, the judge will make it a point in his ruling to point how how he believes the officer and how the defense attorney did a good job. I believe this is done, to make an appeal much more difficult to succeed.

 

[CdwJava]

What % of people leaving a bar are legally drunk ? I suspect a very high %.

That might vary by state and what you define as being "drunk." Being too impaired to drive? There is probably a relatively high proportion of drinkers that fit that category, but being intoxicated in public such that they can be arrested for the offense, relatively few. The standard for an arrest for public intoxication is much higher than that necessary for impaired driving.

The law allows the police to basically arrest anyone leaving the bar.

No, it doesn't. Probable cause must still be met. Coming out of a bar does not imply impairment or public intoxication. If I were to walk out of a bar, I wouldn't be "drunk" because I do not drink. I could not be arrested for either impaired driving or public intoxication as a result of my having been in the bar.

Even if challenged in court, it would most likely not be successful. Any judge would be hesitant to make a ruling that would hinder the police.

The actions by the police would have to be very egregious, I suspect. Hanging out in a parking lot, across the street, or doing frequent walk-throughs of the bar is not likely to reach a level to concern the courts unless coupled with some other action or statements made by the officers or the agency.

Bars and nightclubs represent a HUGE source of problems. Not only do the bars themselves attract troubles, but people leaving them after having been drinking can cause other problems such as DUI, public intoxication, fights, arguments at home (domestics), and other problems. A well-run establishment works with the police to create and institute procedures to minimize problems. This can be done in a variety of different ways, and the state and the feds publish a number of suggestions on how to accomplish this.

My agency has an officer assigned as the local liaison with all the licensed liquor establishments to help circumvent problems. The problem bar has installed video surveillance on-site and has made recordings readily available to us on request, and has enacted a card check process at the door on weekends ... but, their bartenders still fail to cut people off when they probably should, and they have failed to ID underage drinkers at the bar on weeknights. We still have problems with nightly fights inside and outside of the bar which tend to go unreported, so we continue our frequent presence there. Fortunately, unlike my time in a much larger city in So. Cal., my current city has only one true PROBLEM bar.

 

[dave33]

When I asked about %'s I meant driving, should have been clearer.

Probable cause can always be met. It is simply a statement by the officer. So, as long as the officer doesn't write something ridiculous, his burden is met. It seems police are very well trained in interpreting a situation to meet the specific lawful needs for p.c.

What you may call a problem or even probable cause, others may see as their right.


Carl, I think in general a lot of the confusion with present legal issues is that people are not aware of the laws and the system. Many laws are seen by many as a clear constitutional violation. The majority of people dealing for the 1st time with the sysem are amazed and at a clear disadvantage.

 

[justalayman]

dave33

Probable cause can always be met. It is simply a statement by the officer.

No, it isn't. PC is a higher standard to meet above reasonable suspicion. PC is what is required to obtain a search warrant and a hunch is not adequate to sustain PC.

 

[dave33]

No, it isn't. PC is a higher standard to meet above reasonable suspicion. PC is what is required to obtain a search warrant and a hunch is not adequate to sustain PC.

I understand what you are saying, but think about... Terry frisk, inventory, plain sight, odor or whatever. All of those and a host of others qualify for p.c. and they all rely on the officers statement. Maybe some informal training on how to write this up or just common sense and experience. Whatever the case, the officer will make his "observations" meet the qualifications for p.c. or if new, learn a valuable police lesson and not make that same mistake.