Trinity Medical Center

[Kythas]

Trinity Medical Center in Carrollton is posted with the following signs at every entrance:

"Carrying of a Concealed Handgun on these Premises is Prohibited and Violators will be Arrested for Criminal Trespass.
-----------------
Deportar una arma oculta es prohibido en este lugar y violadores seran arrestados por trespaso criminal.
-- Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(a)/Penal de Tejas Seccion 30.05(a)"

Does this legally prohibit a CHL holder to carry? I know it's not a 30.06 sign, but I'm not entirely sure what the 30.05(a) is about.

[barres]

Nope.

[Kythas]

I found the relevant statute in case anyone has questions about this like I did. Note the red part at the bottom:

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight
inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark
is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet
from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily
visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other
than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a
crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the
process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time
of entry.
(3) "Shelter center" has the meaning assigned by
Section 51.002, Human Resources Code.
(4) "Forest land" means land on which the trees are
potentially valuable for timber products.
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by
Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(6) "Superfund site" means a facility that:
(A) is on the National Priorities List
established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. Section 9605); or
(B) is listed on the state registry established
under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency
medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section
773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of
an official duty under exigent circumstances.
(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor
unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a
deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission
of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that
the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(1) the offense is committed:
(A) in a habitation or a shelter center; or
(B) on a Superfund site; or
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his
person during the commission of the offense.
(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent
or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing
or other form, the person:
(1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;
(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of
the boundary of the land when apprehended; and
(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or
received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

[Lobo73]

Trinity Medical Center in Carrollton is posted with the following signs at every entrance:

"Carrying of a Concealed Handgun on these Premises is Prohibited and Violators will be Arrested for Criminal Trespass.
-----------------
Deportar una arma oculta es prohibido en este lugar y violadores seran arrestados por trespaso criminal.
-- Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(a)/Penal de Tejas Seccion 30.05(a)"

I was in emergency there 4/17 my daughter and saw no signs? There was a sheriff's deputy there that night, but I practiced the "don't ask/don't tell" rule.

[barres]

I guess I should go back and clarify my post. I was in a hurry this morning. The section you highlighted is, indeed, the pertinent part of PC 30.05. But notice that it is a defense to prosecution, not an exception. That means you can still be arrested, and you would have to present the defense at trial where you would (quite likely) win, but you would have had to undergo the cost and embarrassment of the arrest and trial.

[Kythas]

I guess I should go back and clarify my post. I was in a hurry this morning. The section you highlighted is, indeed, the pertinent part of PC 30.05. But notice that it is a defense to prosecution, not an exception. That means you can still be arrested, and you would have to present the defense at trial where you would (quite likely) win, but you would have had to undergo the cost and embarrassment of the arrest and trial.

If it's an affirmative defense at trial, why would the DA even go ahead with charges? I would think the DA would decline to prosecute since it would be a losing case for them.

[barres]

You'd have to ask (thankfully former) DA Chuck Rosenthall and his ilk that question, as it has happened on similar issues regarding carrying handguns. You're probably right, though; it wouldn't go to trial, but you could still very well get arrested. As many here seem fond of saying, "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

Don't get me wrong, I'd still carry in this situation, but I would make extra sure I didn't unintentionally fail to conceal.

[57Coastie]

If it's an affirmative defense at trial, why would the DA even go ahead with charges? I would think the DA would decline to prosecute since it would be a losing case for them.

Kythas: to put this a little differently -- if an accused person has an affirmative defense, she must go into the courtroom and prove the existence, or applicability, if you will, of the defense -- she has the legal obligation to satisfy the jury that even though the prosecution has proved enough to convict her, she indeed truly does have that defense, and she should be acquitted. This is not always cut and dried -- it is not always a "losing case" for the prosecution. A defendant in a criminal trial normally does not have to prove anything. Only the prosecutor has the burden of proving something. The defendant can stand mute and say nothing -- the 5th Amendment tells us this. However, when the defendant feels she has an affirmative defense she has the burden of either coming forward and proving it, or losing it.

If she can "prove it" in advance to the DA, all the better. But if not, she is going to have to go into the courtroom and prove it to a jury.

Respectfully,

Jim

[57Coastie]

Can't you turn around and sue the living beans out of the arresting officer as well as the city for intentionally ignoring state law?

One might say that, within limits as defined by judges, you can sue anyone for anything at any time. Given that understanding, you are quite correct.

If you really meant "successfully sue," then the answer is at best "Unlikely," and at worst "No."

Respectfully,

Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

Technically, "defenses to prosecution" are to be asserted at trial which means you can be arrested. In this particular instance, it's highly unlikely, even if you are unlucky enough to have a rare anti-CHL officer respond to a call.

If a CHL enters an establishment that does not have a TPC §30.06 compliant sign, he/she is not breaking the law, if the property is not otherwise off-limits to armed CHLs. In this scenario, if a hospital representative sees you are armed and asks you to leave (verbal notice), then you must leave or you will be in violation of TPC §30.06, but not TPC §30.05. If instead of asking you to leave the hospital representative calls the police, then the officer will have the hospital representative ask you to leave in the officer's presence. Again, TPC §30.06 requires you to leave at this point. Two key factors in this scenario are 1) you haven't committed a criminal trespass simply by walking past a non-compliant sign; and 2) you received effective notice only when verbally told to leave.

Let's take this scenario one step further. Assume the hospital representative called the police and then tells the responding officer to "arrest that man (CHL)." The officer will ask him "why, did you tell him to leave?" If he says "no" and points to the generic "no guns" sign and/or says "he has a gun," then he just gave the officer evidence that the sole reason for excluding you is the possession of a handgun. When the officer learns you you have a CHL, he then has evidence to show that TPC §30.05 isn't going to be a basis for prosecution because you haven't yet committed a criminal trespass. Of course, we would then be back to the point where the representative will ask you to leave in the officer's presence.

The bottom line is that "defenses to prosecution" and "affirmative defenses" can often create quite a burden for a defendant, but situations involving "no gun" signs that are not compliant with TPC §30.06 are not likely to be a problem for CHLs. In fact, we've had a number of LEOs on TexasCHLforum tell us that even with a 30.06 sign, they would have the property owner ask you to leave in their presence as a prerequisite to an arrest. This is not statutorily required, but it certainly removes any confusion or argument about notice, and it gives the CHL an opportunity to simply leave and avoid any problems.

Of course, this discussion presumes the responding officer is either familiar with the distinction between TPC §§30.05 and 30.06, or is willing to check with a supervisor.

Chas.