Private Establishment Asking to Leave: Who's Allowed To?

[Bege]

I've been trying to figure this out for a while, and I'm having trouble finding laws that directly address it, so hopefully I'll get some help and some citations on the laws here!

Basically, owners of a private establishment have a right to ask you to leave when you open carry (or any carry for that matter). It's their property, and while I find them ignorant, it is their right and I'll abide by it.

However, at most businesses the people that you see/interact with are NOT the owners. Of course if it is marked no weapons that is simple, the ownership has spoken. Same if there is a company policy written out somewhere. But most the time that is not the case, so I am speaking about times where an employee or manager sees your carry and wants you to leave?

I could see an average employee's order to leave meaning nothing. It's not their private property, why would their opinion on my carrying matter? I could see a manager's order meaning the same...however I'm not sure on them, since they may legally have the authority of the owner when they order it...I don't know.

So that's what I'd like to know, who (other than the private property owners themselves) has authority to make me leave? Anyone know?

I can speculate on my own, I'm hoping someone might actually have a bit more concrete knowledge about the law on the subject, so if anyone can cite some laws on it that would be fantastic. Thanks

[gryphon]

MCL 750.552 simply states "owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant."

I would say a manager is definitely an agent of the owner.  Whether a regular employee is if there is a manager on site could be argued in court, but probably isn't an issue as a manager would probably be called before the police are.  If no formal manager is on site, I would say an employee is.

In any event, you'd have to argue it in court if the police arrested you.

[Bege]

You bring up an employee being the only one there with no management present. That's a very good point, a scenario I hadn't thought of. I agree that in that situation the employee (or at least the senior-most employee present at the moment) probably has the same authority as a manager.

I agree that the law you cite seems to at least include management (or employees in the situation above). And at very least it gets me one step closer as I research the topic, thank you!

And I'm definitely aware that, as with nearly any interpretation of law, you may have to argue it in court if it's not well enough known. But I still think it's important to know so that you are giving correct information when you cite law to said employees or managers, so it's important to be informed nonetheless, even if you're going to leave anyway!

[bigt8261]

IMO, any employee at any level is an "agent" of the owner, and it would be an uphill battle to argue otherwise in court. However, I do not believe that precludes one from asking for a manager for clarification.

I would also recommend in any event where someone with a firearm is asked to leave by anyone less than the owner, the person with the firearm should comply respectfully and then seek clarification form the owner, or "corporate" in the event of a chain, at a later time. Any favorable outcome should be obtained in writing.

[fozzy71]

IMO, any employee at any level is an "agent" of the owner, and it would be an uphill battle to argue otherwise in court. However, I do not believe that precludes one from asking for a manager for clarification.

this

I would also recommend in any event where someone with a firearm is asked to leave by anyone less than the owner, the person with the firearm should comply respectfully and then seek clarification form the owner, or "corporate" in the event of a chain, at a later time. Any favorable outcome should be obtained in writing.

and this

[TheQ]

My advice: if anyone who works there tells you to leave, do so immediately and call the manager on the phone later.

Or see post #4

[bigt8261]

Would the employee leaving to seek out a manager upon request be implied consent for you to stay until said manager arrives and passes their own judgement?

I should add to my previous comments that, while you may ask for a manager, a manager does not have to see you. In that case, I fully support Q.

[Bege]

Thank you for the opinions guys, but there is nothing wrong with questing after the legal knowledge on the subject, even if you are still going to leave when asked by anyone.

My earlier statement sums it up: "But I still think it's important to know so that you are giving correct information when you cite law to said employees or managers, so it's important to be informed nonetheless, even if you're going to leave anyway!"

Your opinions on the best course of action are wise, but the best course of action is not what the thread is about. It is OK to sometimes want to know about how a law works, even if you don't plan on pushing it to its limits. So if we could keep on the topic of the law, rather than opinions on the smartest course of action (because I'm positive there's already threads about that!) then that would be much appreciated. This is about citing the laws and seeking to understand them.

Right now that would mean any citation of a law or court precedent that legally defines an "agent" of the owner in the context of the cited trespassing law (which I am currently researching as well, but would welcome any sources found by any of you, of course!).

Thanks

[Bege]

As an update, while researching the definition of an "agent" I came across this part of a Michigan law defining when a citizen's arrest can be made.

[...] If the private person is a merchant, an agent of a merchant, an employee of a merchant, or an independent contractor providing security for a merchant of a store [...]

The fact that it made a distinction between an "agent" of a merchant and an "employee" of a merchant continues to make me wonder if the average old employee is indeed an "agent" of a property owner.

Far from anything conclusive, but I considered it relevant enough to share just in case I'm not the only one still working on this question

[gryphon]

Many people will not push the issue, choosing instead to not give their money to any establishment that would ask them to leave.  However, you raise a valid point and it deserves legal consideration.  Perhaps you should ask your question in the Legal sub-forum here.

[TheQ]

If asked to leave by any employee,I will do so immediately without question or comment. I'll debate the law, merits, and my future with that establishment with the manager/owner on the phone later.

As far as agent, use a dictionary.

I'd rather not get arrested for trespass.

[fozzy71]

As an update, while researching the definition of an "agent" I came across this part of a Michigan law defining when a citizen's arrest can be made.......

AFAIK you can not use the definition from one unrelated law in another law.  IMO any employee is an agent but I tend to err on the side of not going to jail.

[bigt8261]

AFAIK you can not use the definition from one unrelated law in another law.  IMO any employee is an agent but I tend to err on the side of not going to jail.

This is correct. In CADL v MOC, CADL's representation argued that district libraries are not preempted under MCL 123.1102 and were not intended to be because 123.1101 defined "local unit of government" differently than other laws did, so the legislature must have included/excluded by intent.

Bege, unfortunately gryphon has already provided the little there is in the law. Everything beyond what is explicitly in the statue or any known case law is "gray area". This is where opinion comes into play. It's crappy, I know, but it's what we have to deal with.

[Bege]

Coming back to this much later

@fozzy - You're right. I wasn't so much trying to use that definition as much as give an example that it may not always be considered that an employee is always an agent, and therefore I wasn't willing to close the case until having done more research.

@TheQ - I agree with your recommended course of action. But, that doesn't stop me from wanting to know the reality of the law, regardless. You say to argue it with the owner later...but how would I argue law with the owner later if I didn't learn the law in detail? That's exactly what I'm trying to do; learn that particular law to the point where I could effectively argue it later! The recommendation of using the dictionary is very true, but I've found that just about as helpful as the law was. A third of the definitions I look up give a positive, a third negative, and the other third ambiguous.

@bigt - I've come to the same conclusion. The more I research, the more it seems the word "agent" is not only ambiguous in scope of the law, but from the standpoint of the English language itself! Therefore it's just straight up gonna come down to the how the courtroom played out that day, and neither side would really have a solid argument either way. I guess sometimes the answer really is: "we won't know until there's precedent to tell us." I'm not volunteering to be that precedent...so I guess that'll be a while!

[Closing the Gap]

I don't think TheQ meant the call to manager/owner later was to discuss the law. It is to get the definitive view of the store/companies policy regarding carry on their premises. Correct me if I'm wrong(TheQ). I don't see how the wishes of the owner can be refuted by law. In this case the law is on their side.

I personally call the owner later only to get their permission or to let them know I'll no longer support them.

[Bege]

I understand what Q meant. My statement more exasperation that it's very frustrating to say over and over that I'm not asking a question about recommended action, but rather for the sake of understanding the law itself...and still repeatedly get opinions on recommended action instead of meaningful discussion about the law itself.

I DO plan on leaving if asked, regardless of whether the law actually gives that individual employee authority as an agent. That's just prudent action. But that doesn't mean I don't want to KNOW whether the law actually gives the individual employee authority as an agent. That's just wanting to be knowledgeable! And since I've clarified this multiple times in the thread, it's frustrating to still get those off topic "well, this is what I'd do" posts.

Especially from Q, who seems otherwise to have great reading comprehension skills. But his first post was AFTER I stated that the question was about academic understanding of the law, not courses of action...yet his post was about course of action instead. Then when I addressed that to clarify the intention of the thread again, he decided to make yet another post about course of action instead of academic understanding of the law. Not to mention both of his posts seem to be somewhat condescending. Why would one be condescending about searching for lawful knowledge and wanting to have a meaningful discussion with like minded individuals about that search for lawful knowledge? I'm aware of dictionaries, but being that even those definitions are pretty ambiguous, what the heck is wrong with wanting to have a discussion about it with others?

A great example here is showing ID when asked while open carrying. Sure, the grand majority will say it's prudent and recommend doing so. But nobody recommends that that means we shouldn't at least know the law and whether or not you have the legal right to say no. In fact, how many times have I read on here that you need to read the laws so many times that you know all of their words and meanings by heart? That academic understanding of the law is still useful to you, even if you don't plan on pushing it there. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not a bad thing, and it's frustrating to essentially get told not to bother with that knowledge...because here's what you should do anyway....

[TucTom]

Could the law mean "registered agent" of a company? I have no idea personally and with out thinking too hard I would have thought agent meaning employee, but it would have been easy to put "owner or occupant or the employee of the owner or occupant".

Interesting though. Why not move this to "Ask a lawyer" sub. since the OP is asking more in the context of law.

[bigt8261]

The question has been asked, answered and understood. Thanks Bege for posting your followup.

[TheQ]

I don't think TheQ meant the call to manager/owner later was to discuss the law. It is to get the definitive view of the store/companies policy regarding carry on their premises. Correct me if I'm wrong(TheQ). I don't see how the wishes of the owner can be refuted by law. In this case the law is on their side.

I personally call the owner later only to get their permission or to let them know I'll no longer support them.

Correct. The purpose in calling is to clarify/certify store policy. If mgmt confirms the policy, I tell them I'll no longer do business there.

If mgmt says no such policy exists, I'll suggest they clarify that with their employees.

[TheQ]

There is no legal citation for who is an agent with regards to trespass. Common law would dictate a "reasonable person" standard and if a reasonable person would believe the person they were speaking to had authority.

If you're willing to risk a trespass charge, wait until the cops show up.

If the OP isn't satisfied with this answer, it's worth precisely what he paid for it