Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00109)

Steve Stubbs wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> > A owner of a private entity 
> > accused a man and his son of trespassing. The police, having no 
> reason 
> > not to believe the owner, arrested them. If it turns out that the 
> > accusation was false (as it was), the owner of the private entity 
> is now 
> > liable to both civil and criminal charges. And believe me, the 
> former, 
> > if not the latter, WILL happen.
> I have a question. The complaint was reported tobe that the pair 
> were asked to leave the premises and they refused to do so. That 
> seems to be the historical fact. If refusal to vacate private 
> property constitutes trespassing, it would seem the charge has legal 
> force. Am I missing something here?
Yes. The owner of a public accommodation does not necessarily have the 
right to eject people from the property. To give a simple example, he 
cannot eject people because they happen to be black or hispanic. Even if 
there is a "no dogs" rule, he cannot eject a blind person with a guide 
dog (one notable, and, IMHO, strange exception to the last is movie 
theaters; strange because live theater is NOT excepted).

Bart Lidofsky