General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Starbucks thing... [View all]EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I want to stay as far away from there as possible.
Seriously, there is indeed a requirement for police to check if there is a "legitimate" basis for the arrest - it's called probable cause.
And, as I'm sure you know, what is probable cause depends on the individual circumstances. So, for example, if I'm a homeowner and a man shows up on my property and won't leave and I call the police and say he's trespassing, when they arrive and ask the man what he's doing on my property and he says "just hanging around" and doesn't offer any legal reason to be on my property - e.g., he's an owner or renter, has an easement, etc., - they'll likely determine they have probably cause to arrest him if he doesn't leave. But if he says, "I live here" and shows his driver license with my address on it, they don't have probably cause to arrest him for "defiant trespassing" without more information of wrongdoing. Unless I can show them another reason that he's not supposed to be there, they will surely leave him be and not arrest him for trespassing, no matter how much I tell them he shouldn't be allowed to stay.
They're not going to just take my word for it, drag the man to jail and then let him sort it out later in a civil lawsuit.
In the case of the store, under Pennsylvania law, the men had a lawful right to be there unless they were violating some lawful condition of access, so unless the manager could prove there was a condition of access that they were violating, there was no probably cause to arrest them. And, if pressed, not only could the owner not prove such a condition existed - because none did as the no buy not sit claim wasn't a rule or policy that was communicated to the public as a condition of entry or remaining - but all available evidence suggested that the store's policy was just the opposite: people were allowed to access the premises even if they DIDN'T buy anything. Given that, the police officers had no probable cause to make an arrest.
And the DA obviously concluded this, as well, since in declining to charge the men, he said there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of defiant trespassing.
It's very simple.