foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers trespassing private property and identifications and is brought To Us by a private submission be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode surf shark surf shark is the most affordable and secure VPN service available on the market and they have been a supporter of this channel for years now I personally use their VPN service every day and I respect them as a company for helping to provide this Channel with the means to grow one of the many perks of a surf shark subscription is that it allows you to bypass region restrictions on popular platforms like YouTube and Netflix and view content that is not normally available in your country thanks to surfshark I can still watch my favorite episodes of The Office even though it was removed from the US Netflix catalog Right Now surfshark is offering the ATA Community an 83 percent discount with an additional three months completely free when you use code audit at checkout with 24-hour customer service and a 30-day money-back guarantee you have absolutely nothing to lose so click the link in the description to claim your exclusive offer now thanks again to surfshark for sponsoring this episode on May 11 2022 the owner of the office building known as The Atrium in Norcross Georgia who we will refer to as Mr Frank contacted the police after an individual he had previously asked to leave the property's private parking lot returned and parked their vehicle in the lot officer B velasis of the Gwinnett County Police Department responded to the call approached the individual who had returned to the parking lot and began to discuss the situation with her officer velocis's body camera was muted during the first part of the conversation so we will begin the video mid dialogue okay Panera Bread because I'm uh okay but you came back you're not in Panera Bread you're in their parking lot Panera Panera Bread parking lot is over it's over there and it says right here in spanish okay and I'm a customer okay what's what's your what's your day are you homeless or something she said she's a customer of Panera Bread and Panera Bread does have a sign there that says additional parking lot right here but the guy who I told you he's in the back now sorry the guy I told him this morning yeah he jumps he's in the back of the truck now is this your parking lot because Panera Bread has a sign that says that this is for them too so that's their son okay you own the place yes and what is your name yes uh let me get your ID please in fact how do I know that this is not Panera Bread doesn't own that's not that's not what that's not what I see across the street there's an arrow I'm not kidding you can you can you read can you read that sign sir apparently it's Paneras too did you allow them to have that sign there we don't and that's why there's a cover that fell I Can See Clearly from here the sign's still there I have no way to verify that all of these parking lot here is your uh yeah I can check I can check done officer velasus claims that he cannot ask the woman to leave because a sign across the street indicates that Panera Bread customers can park in the lot according to Mr Frank the previous owner of the property had an agreement with the restaurant that allowed Panera customers to use the atrium slot as overflow parking but he terminated that agreement when he assumed ownership of the property instead of removing an old sign that pointed to the atrium lot Panera management covered the old sign with the new one which fell off on the date of this incident according to section 16-7-21 of the Georgia Code quote a person commits the offense of Criminal Trespass when he or she knowingly and without Authority enters upon the land or premises of another person after receiving prior to such entry notice from the owner rightful occupant or upon proper identification an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden likewise the statute also states that an individual commits Criminal Trespass when he or she quote remains upon land or premises of another person after receiving notice from the owner rightful occupant or upon proper identification an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart the trespassing statute is not limited to personal dwellings and can be applied to business property even when it is held open to the public as the court of appeals of Georgia held in the 1973 case of EP versus state of Georgia that quote there is no merit in the contention that the phrase premises of another person does not include property owned or used for public purposes the court based its decision in this case on the definition of person under the Georgia criminal code explaining that section 16-1-3 of the Georgia Code states that in the criminal statutes the term person means quote an individual a public or private Corporation an incorporated Association government government agency partnership or unincorporated association the language of this statute is clear that the owner or rightful occupant or their authorized representative has the authority to remove individuals from the property and forbid them from returning even if the sign was accurate and the lot was still used for Panera overflow parking as the owner of the property a court would very likely conclude that Mr Frank had the legal authority to trespass any individual from the property for nearly any reason let's see there that says owner why haven't you taken civil action for them to remove that I did I want parking doesn't matter I don't know you and I don't own this place so I don't know that's the thing you probably should take civil action and telephone everybody to remove that that uh sign don't you agree you think a cover will be enough if your neighbor puts a sign I'm asking them to leave if a neighbor I'm trying to explain but you want to get your way and I'm asking to leave it okay I'm not gonna buy you later this is my property you don't know that you don't know that I know that so basically basically the lady says I'm a customer of Panera Bread and they have a sign there that says the Panera Bread this is an additional parking lot of them can't ask where to live officer velasis claims that because the sign says Panera Bread customers can park in the lot he cannot ask the driver to leave the property because he would be violating her civil rights it is unclear exactly which of the driver's civil rights he thinks telling her to leave a private parking lot would violate but in general individuals do not have a constitutional right to simply be present on someone else's property even when it's held open to the public or owned by the government in fact courts have held that even fundamental civil rights such as freedom of speech do not override private property owners authority to control who has access to the property or what activities will be allowed there in the 1972 case of Lloyd Corp vs Tanner the Supreme Court determined that the owner of a large public shopping mall had the authority to ban the dissemination of hand bills throughout the property and concluded that property does not quote lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes the court reasoned that quote few would argue argue that a freestanding store with a budding parking space for customers assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there the essentially private character of a store and it's privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center similarly in the 1990 case of citizens Etc versus Gwinnett Place Association the Supreme Court of Georgia held that individuals did not have a right to attempt to obtain petition signatures for a recall election effort in quote a privately owned and operated shopping mall that is generally open to the public for shopping dining and entertainment rejecting the idea of quote a constitutional right of access to private property for political activity the court explained that quote Most states that have considered the issue have determined that their state constitutions do not require privately owned shopping centers to permit political activities on their premises here the atrium lot was not held open to the general public like the shopping center owners in these cases were and the driver was simply parked on the property without attempting to exercise speech or any other first amendment activity given the precedent on this issue and the strong protections for property rights that are enshrined in the U.S legal system a court reviewing this situation would almost certainly conclude that the driver had no constitutional right to park in the parking lot and her civil rights would not be violated if officer villasis asked her to leave someone else's private property have you ever had uh all right this is the second time these people are here I tell them to leave they came back I don't see what's up in my property I want them off of it I don't care what that sign says they don't own this property you should care I have your card sir yeah of course I mean I'll be telling sorry if you would like to you can tell them that this again tomorrow is really adamant that this is not Panera's parking lot but we cannot make them live as of now hello ma'am this episode sorry Gwinnett County Police Department so I know that sign is there and all that but the manager is here he doesn't want any any cars that uh for Panera here so I'm gonna ask ask you to leave I have an argument right now it's about half an hour left I'm gonna finish it and then we go no ma'am I need you to leave right now the manager of the property wants you to leave you need to leave okay if not it's uh criminals oh we're gonna we're gonna ask him to take care of that with Panera but uh but yeah just just park it whatever you need in Panera son I don't want to sit on the sun I'm in the shape here I didn't break any room well I'm not violating anything the scientists at corner of particle so I parked in Panera Park oh that's just a sign okay with the manager but the manager here is saying that you cannot park here [Music] no I need you to leave right now man do you have your ID with you he doesn't want you here anymore okay while officer velocis continues to discuss the situation with Mr Frank officer D.E osario Geraldo who arrived on the scene shortly after officer velasus approaches the driver and asks her several times to leave she initially refuses but when officer osario Geraldo requests her identification she silently backs up and leaves the parking lot rather than comply while Georgia does not have a stop and identify law that requires citizens to identify themselves to police officers during a stop based on Reasonable Suspicion section 16-11-36 of the Georgia Code authorizes officers to request that individuals identify themselves when they are suspected of loitering the statute states that quote a person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity a law enforcement officer shall prior to any arrest afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct the statute also identifies the circumstances that an officer can consider in determining whether alarm is warranted as including quote the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer refuses to identify himself or manifestly Endeavors to conceal himself or any object additionally Georgia law authorizes officers to demand to see the driver's license of the operator of a motor vehicle which section 40-1-1 of the Georgia Code defines as quote any person who drives or is an actual physical control of a motor vehicle section 40-5-29 of the Georgia Code states that quote every license e shall have his or her driver's license in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and that quote every licensee shall display his or her license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer in the 1999 case of win versus State the court of appeals of Georgia concluded that an individual violated Georgia's open container law which forbids the possession of an open container of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle by sitting in their vehicle on the side of the road even though they were not seen driving the vehicle the court asserted that quote the term operating a vehicle includes being an actual physical control of the vehicle regardless of whether the vehicle is driven given this precedent a court could determine that the driver could be charged for refusing to provide her driver's license to officer osario Geraldo in this situation since he had Reasonable Suspicion to believe that she was trespassing and she had actual physical control of the vehicle okay yeah you should you should tell them you should take say well actually to remove that sign property if this was your house um but still you should because we can't do anything no I I understand look I'm not trying to argue with you you should go and tell them hey look I own this place I'm trying to give this an agreement what I'm saying I'm not trying to argue with you I got them out okay I want to impress us because they're going to come back in five minutes you're gonna have to go ask them to remove that sign because it doesn't matter but I told him not to come back when they came back I don't really care what the sign says and I can't believe an officer is arguing with me yeah because I'm not gonna buy you later they're right so we're right she's not wrong she says I'm a customer panel bread and there's a sign there maybe you should take civil auction for them to remove that sign try to use common sense sir I call you guys a lot unfortunately I've never had this issue yeah because uh some people are lazy and they just happy to push people around I'm not foreign after Mr Frank walked away from the conversation the officers left without further incident according to the computer-aided dispatch or CAD report which Mr Frank obtained by submitting a public records request officer velassus made a comment regarding the incident that stated quote made contact with female who said she's a customer of Panera Bread so therefore she is allowed to be in the parking lot I proceeded to look at the sign that says that additional parking lot Panera Bread with a huge arrow pointing at 3300 Holcomb Bridge Road I proceeded to acknowledge the sign and leave the female alone the representative at 3300 was upset because I didn't trespass her and that he couldn't believe that I wasn't doing what he is telling me to do I told him that he should probably have Panera remove the sign he left in disagreement female was not trespassed overall officer velasus gets a c for refusing to assist Mr Frank in upholding his property rights demonstrate creating a fundamental misunderstanding of both Georgia's trespassing laws and the Constitution and exhibiting a condescending attitude throughout the encounter Mr Frank was entirely within his rights to trespass the individual from his property and as an officer of the law officer velasa should have recognized and defended those rights while I appreciate officer velasus's desire to avoid violating the driver's civil rights he was seriously mistaken about the extent of those rights and ironically refused to recognize Mr Frank's actual constitutional rights in deference to the non-existent right to park on private property he believed the driver to have understanding the basic principles of the Constitution is a vital element of successful police work and officer velocis could certainly benefit from additional legal training officer osario Geraldo gets a b because although he seemed to have a much better understanding of trespassing laws and property rights than officer velasus and ordered the driver to leave the parking lot he did not take any action to confront or correct officer velocis about Mr Frank's rights as a property owner in fact it seems from officer velocis's comment on the cad report which claims that the driver was not trespassed that he did not even inform officer velasus that he told her she needed to leave the property while I applaud officer osario Geraldo for taking the proper actions and removing the driver from Mr Frank's property his failure to confront officer velocis will only further encourage officer velocis's inaccurate understanding of the relevant legal principles and he will likely continue to make similar mistakes until he is corrected Mr Frank gets an A plus for knowing understanding and defending his rights as a property owner tactfully challenging officer velocis's assertions and maintaining a respectful demeanor throughout the interaction even though his attempts to educate officer velocis about the law were clearly unsuccessful I commend Mr Frank for attempting to do so and for refusing to back down when officer velocis mistakenly claim that he did not have the authority to ask the driver to leave his private property Mr Frank also deserves recognition for obtaining the body camera footage of this incident although he may or may not have a case regarding this particular incident this footage could become valuable if a similar situation should occur in the future let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] foreign [Music]