Ok this is strange.

[Rambler]

As a former police officer, I can attest to the fact that many businesses have what is called a "trespass agreement" with their local department, which is basically a standing agreement that the police will keep people off of the property (parking lots included) after hours.

[donna52522]

Well we never hung around places that have a "No loitering, Police take Notice" sign, nor would we go on property with a posted "No trespassing" sign, or hunt where it says "No Hunting" That would simply be just disrespectful.

The fact is we were in a public place, with no posted time limit, no posted warnings, and we were doing nothing that could cause a problem with anyone else.

If it's not posted, then there shouldn't be a problem.

The fact is we were in a public place, with no posted time limit, no posted warnings, and we were doing nothing that could cause a problem with anyone else.

Is the parking lot "public space" or is it private property?

[Rambler]

While the area might be open to the public, it's still private property (private property=not owned by the government). If the owner of the property does not want anyone around after hours, that is within their rights, and a trespass agreement empowers the police to enforce those wishes without any posted signs or individual requests for service.

Now, if there was no such agreement in place for that property, and no signs posted, then the cop was overstepping his bounds, as there would not be any legal reason to run you off from an area commonly open to the public.

So, in short, without knowing what agreements the property owner has with the department, it's hard to tell if the officer was being a jerk or not.

[donna52522]

It was a private owned theater parking lot, no signs posted and I know from a fact that several people in the past have drank on the property....and they were arrested for drinking and driving only after they left the parking lot and were on a public roadway.

The police couldn't arrest them on that property even though they were drinking and behind the wheel of a vehicle....because it is a private owned parking lot.

Thank you, you have enlightened me to something I already knew, I foresee several complaint letters from many people to our local police department.

So it seems the property owners have an established problem of people abusing their property, which means they probably have the agreement in place which Rambler mentions.
That would suggest that your letters of complaint will have no bearing.

[Feuer Frei!]

Loitering is defined as remaining in any one place without no apparent reason.
Loitering is an activity in which someone remains stationary in a public area for an extended period of time without a specific purpose.
When loitering is linked with activities like obstructing passage along a road or sidewalk or attempting to control an area, it can be a cause for law enforcement intervention. Control of territory through loitering is of special concern in areas where gang activity is an issue, and gang members may loiter at key points in order to send a message to other gangs. It can also be viewed as criminal activity when it is accompanied with begging, solicitation, sales, public drunkenness, intimidation, or being a public nuisance.
Certainly not suggesting you are doing any of these.
This is pertinent because the Police will want to know why you are in a car park at night, catching up with your friends, rather than at the local bar or at your or their place.
Police have a right to question your intent, and to move you along, if no grounds for you to be present are apparent.
Are there any shops nearby? Businesses?
If there is, have they had recent break-ins? Is it a bad area? Bad part of town? Gang activity?
All these things make the Police even more aware of people lingering in public places like car parks etc. And to move along.
You say you are a good moral person and not doing anything wrong by chatting in a car park with some mates. But how are the Police meant to know that that is your only intent?
You can be charged with loitering if you are in a place and at a time where normal, law-abiding citizens are not commonly found and which could be construed as posing a threat to property or to others.
A council, if it's a public car park has laws in place to deter loitering in public car parks and you can be asked to move along and can be fined.
Private car parks will have even more stringent laws to deter loitering and as a result can have more serious consequences.
Your best bet is to check with your local law enforcement office on the laws of loitering in your area or neighborhood.

You say you are a good moral person and not doing anything wrong by chatting in a car park with some mates. But how are the Police meant to know that that is your only intent?

Yeah, right. Better lock crazy-Donna away in advance, just to make sure, since you'll never know what those crazy chatting kids are up to nowadays...

As long as there is no sign of a crime going to happen, the police should stay quiet and friendly, wish her and her friends a nice evening and be gone.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yeah, right. Better lock crazy-Donna away in advance, just to make sure, since you'll never know what those crazy chatting kids are up to nowadays...

You're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't insinuating that she's not a good decent moral person.

As long as there is no sign of a crime going to happen, the police should stay quiet and friendly, wish her and her friends a nice evening and be gone.

If you read some of my points that i raised about public, or in this case private properties being used as a meeting place for catching up and dwelling on said premises, that are extended to such a point that it becomes the possibility of falling under the loitering law then you would perhaps have an incling as to why the Police would move persons on.

[Platapus]

Chicago v. Morales, No. 97-1121 (1999) made loitering laws unconstitutional although many people still use the term loitering. The decision was based on the interpretation of "loitering" is too vague and is a violation of the First Amendment (the right of the people peaceably to assemble).

On privately owned property, it is actually trespassing, which is a different offense and is enforceable. An owner of private property can always tell you to git and you gotta git.

On publicly owned land, a person can not be charged with just "loitering" if they are not breaking any other ordinances, creating a disturbance, or interfering with others. Lots (lot's, for Steve) of loopholes. Some states have ordinances pertaining to ex-cons assembling but they are separate ordinances. The bottom line is that there may be ways the police can force you to leave, but they based on other ordinances then loitering.

Now this is a nice safe academic opinion. Would I try to "educate" a cop that is telling me to git? Probably not. PoP (Pissed off Police) can always find something to charge you with, even if they have to make it up. Then it becomes a "Cop says" v "Subjugated Citizen says" case and I think we can imagine how judges rule on those.

If a PoP tells you to git, it might be better off in the long run to quietly git.

[Feuer Frei!]

The loitering law, as it stands, was also called a convenience law. In other words, it gave the local law enforcement a reason to be able to move anyone they didn't like or find suitable in their eyes to move on, or worse, to arrest.
This was especially prevalent in the 1800's in the south and became a racial issue as well. Luckily we don't live in those times anymore.