A person was attempting to get signatures on a petition for political purposes. He went to the local grocery store and put a lawn chair close to the front door. The manager asked him to leave and the police were called. There were some complaints from customers and he was also stopping and asking the employees to sign his petition. At first he refused to leave the premises or to go to the far end of the parking lot. He eventually left the property but said that he would be back. He also went to another store where he sat on a bench close to the front door seeking signatures. He was asked to leave by the manager but the police were not called. At closing, more than an hour later, he was still on the property. The manager again stated that he did not want to see him on the property again for the purpose of soliciting.

The next week, he was back at both businesses. At the grocery store, he left when asked. At the other store, the manager did not speak to him after being told that he was on the property but instead called the police from inside the store. Because it was near closing time, the police did not arrest him at the scene. Now, the business wants to file charges for criminal trespass. The police want to know what to do with this case and what the policy is going to be in the future regarding businesses open to the public that do not want any kind of solicitation at their business. Please let me know your thoughts.

Assuming the store is removing him for soliciting, rather than the content of his message, it would seem to be a proper trespassing case; Check out Gibbons 775 SW2d 790. Also Zarsky 827 SW2d 408 cites some federal cases dealing with shopping areas.

Why was he not given a criminal tresspass warning at the time the police asked him to leave? Restricting his access to the property at all is the exclusive right of the premisis owner, is it not?

Once personally instructed not to return, an arrest seems rather pedestrian. (If you'll pardon the pun.)

Also look at the second half of 'Obstructing a highway'. 42.03 includes a passageway, hallway, sidewalk, elevator, entry, or exit. The case law shows that you don't have to chain yourself to a door to impede traffic. Merely being in the way or obstructive in behavior can qualify as unreasonably inconvenient. Now, if it's speech related behavior, as it appears that this situation is, the defendant gets one warning from a peace officer: (42.04)

I devised a written fill-in-the-blanks trespass warning form for use by the peace officers in my county. It is signed by the property ownner; then, the police oficer signs it affirming that he warned the person, and the person signs it acknowledging receipt of the warning. The use of the form has eliminated problems with trespass prosecutions. E-mail me if you want a copy.

Same here. We use the written warning. It makes susequent prosecutions much easier. Same form is used for those caught shoplifting at a local store.

The police did not give a trespass warning at the time because they were not sure what the law was and he was claiming his constitutional right to free speech. He has filed several suits in federal and district court, pro se.

The manager of the second store asked him to leave and he did not leave until closing time. At closing, the manager discovered that he was still on the property and stated "I will not see you back here, will I?" He wrote a letter to the stores which was a veiled threat at litigation. Then he came back at the later date.

I think the notice from the manager is sufficient and the complaints from the customers give a good reason to ask him to leave if that is important to show that the reason was not to suppress speech.

I tried a case very similar to the details of this one. My case involved the defendant trying to sell his book at a theater. The theater was showing the Left Behind movie and the defendant had written a book along the same lines. The manager told him to go away and he stayed. She waited for over an hour and called the police. The jury had no problem with the trespass warning. However, we were very careful to prove up that the theater did not allow any soliciters including such groups as the girl scouts.