General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Starbucks thing... [View all]Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)There is an affirmative defense that a person in a public place is presumed to not be trespassing laws if they have not violated a condition of access.
But one condition of access is always permission of the property owner or manager. That permission is presumed to exist when a place is open to the public, but once withdrawn of that permission is communicated to the persons they no longer are presumed to have it.
So they, once again, were not trespassing until the manager asked them to leave.
At that point by refusing to leave they were trespassing.
The only probably cause needed was the cops to make sure the person claiming to be the manager was really the manager, then they tell the people that the manager has asked them to leave. And when they refuse, the violation is there.