Patriot Party member arrested at Chandler school board meeting

Here, "creating a disturbance" has a very specific legal meaning. I posted the relevant Arizona law earlier in the thread. I do not believe anything he did in the video rises to the level of that. Public schools do have some special "zones" around which various activities are regulated, and penalties are increased. For instance, discharging a firearm or selling illegal drugs within a certain distance of a school carries extra penalties. I am not sure if the venue in question is a school, or some administration building. Regardless, they were having a public meeting, to which the public was, presumably, invited. And the incident took place in a public area.

Generally, police have no legal power here to force anyone to do anything, until they have broken a law. I have not seen where this gentleman, loud and obnoxious as he is, broke any laws for which to be arrested.

 

The parking lot is exactly as public as the football stadium - and its parking lot. Being asked to leave one is identical to the other. Refusal to do so is violating a lawful order. Plenty of people who told the cops that they were "in big trouble' while refusing to comply with a lawful order spent more than a few days in jail wishing that they had kept their traps shut and complied - even in Arizona...

 

No it is not. The football stadium is a restricted area with, presumably, posted placards and signs defining the conditions under which you are allowed to enter. Whereas, the parking lot is a public space, owned by the public, and open to the public.

A "lawful order" must be lawful. A police officer must have authority to issue orders, else his orders are not lawful.

That said, police officers regularly issue unlawful orders, and back them with force, and even jail. The OP is an example.

The police officer could have ordered Mr Daniels to dance the hokey-pokie, and backed that order with threat of arrest. It would not have been a "lawful order".

 

Well, you've certainly got a unique take and you're very sure of yourself. My understanding is that a parking spot that is located within a complex such as a university, an institution, a sports place, or any other place, particularly where there's a gate to enter and a fence - I.e not on the surrounding streets - that is not a public space, even if there's a "public meeting" there. It's kind of absurd. So somebody can rock up to a "public space" and demand that they can do whatever they want in that space. I don't think so. But unlike you I'm going to say I don't know for sure in this case.

 

I am pretty sure of myself, because I have researched and know trespass law well.

You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position a bit. My position is that, if someone is in a space that they are legally allowed to be, unless they break a law, or a person who privately owns that space or their legal representative asks you to leave, police cannot legally force them to leave.

Further, police cannot solicit a trespass. For instance, if police want you to leave, they cannot legally go coerce the property owner to have you trespassed. The property owner has to initiate the request, he cannot legally be prompted to do so.

Further again, before you can be trespassed from a place you are legally allowed to be, you have to first be given the opportunity to voluntarily leave. You cannot be criminally trespassed unless you first refuse to leave when trespass-warned by someone who has the legal authority to do so.

Private property and public property are treated differently. No member of the public can be legally trespassed from public property unless they are in a restricted area they are not allowed to be in AND they are refusing to leave when asked, or they have committed a crime in a public area, for which they can then be asked to leave. After all, public property belongs to the public, and everyone who works there works for the public. So, it follows that a member of the public who is legally present in a public space on public property is not subservient to public employees... unless and until he commits a crime. Police are commonly ignorant of this distinction, as appears to be the case in the OP's example.

A fenced parking lot with a gate at a publicly owned property, your example, is not open to the public unless the gate is open to a public road or space, and there is no otherwise restrictive signage; "No trespassing" or "Authorized personnel only", for example. If a person climbs a fence, or opens a closed gate into an area he is not otherwise authorized to access, he is trespassing. If the gate is open, and there is no signage indicating otherwise, it is reasonable and legal to assume it is open to the public.

In the case of private property, for instance a grocery store parking lot, an authorized person can tell you to leave for any reason. Once an authorized person asks you to leave, you must leave, or you will THEN be trespassing and subject to arrest.

In the case of the OP, there may be other circumstances that are not apparent. For instance, Mr Daniels may have previously been criminally trespassed or trespass-warned from this property or an associated property prior to the incident in the video. In that case, then they were justified in their action and he went to jail for his own negligence or ignorance.

I'm sorry this is so verbose. I hope this clears things up a bit.

 

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me. I understand you think you understand this, but I'd like someone who works in the legal system, rather than someone who claims to have read it on the internet to verify this.

According to what you are saying he could have done whatever he wanted, gone inside where the meeting was and created a bunch of noise and nobody could do a thing.

 

I haven't made any such claim.

If he were to do that, he will have committed a crime, and therefore be subject to trespass.

 

Yes, but your analysis draws no distinction between inside the building and out. It's all public access on the day, right? Why wouldn't he be eligible to gain access to that auditorium in exactly the same way?

As I see it he can be directed to leave the auditorium, he can be directed to leave the cafeteria and he can be directed to leave the school grounds as well. He doesn't have any special privileges on one part of the school versus another.

At least, that's how these rules apply in Australia.

 

If he commits a crime, he can be trespassed from any public space. In your scenario, he cannot disrupt the meeting without becoming disorderly. I posted the relevant Arizona statute for disorderly conduct earlier in the thread. Once he does that, he is subject to trespass and charges for disorderly conduct.

Further, if he is admitted to a restricted area, like perhaps the meeting room, or a sports arena, he is subject to any other restrictions that are in place for that area. Those rules must be posted in a prominent place. For instance, he may be required to possess a ticket, wear a mask, or silence his phone, etc. If he violates those rules he can be asked to leave. Once he refuses to leave, he can be trespassed and arrested.