That's a great one...as good as the .... Out Episode about secondhand smoke.
After being harrased by the cops
- Thread starter kgonepostl
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Although it shouldn't matter what it looks like, I agree that perception is 95% of reality and it would be better if our PV's all looked significantly different from analogs.
Whether a person is on probation or not should not have anything to do with it. They were not breaking the law or harming or harrassing others. They have the same "rights" as the rest of us and should be treated accordingly.
They don't have the same rights- many rights are suspended while on probation. Search and seizure at any time, they don't need to ask...you cant have a gun...you cant leave your state without asking...lots of fun stuff. They have the legal right to pick on you lol
I'm not arguing anything other than the rights thing...in this little BFE town I am living in now, you get probation if you get two speeding tickets in one month...guess who no longer has a lead foot? I would have never picked a fight over my PV while I was being judicially babysat for three months. Its just silly to me. I have already agreed it does nothing for our future with these genius sticks.
If he didn't confiscate the device... and has no "Testing" to indicate anything harmful in the device... The case will be thrown-out...
There is no smoke, there is not smoke-odor, and unless it was tested on the spot for a narcotic agent, there is nothing they can charge you with, except for disturbing the peace, and that can be countered for, by saying it was harassment.
It is his word against yours. If you indicate you only had water in the device... and the Cop is not a chemist, and did not perform a chemical composition test... then it is your word that wins.
You also can't be charged for "Smelling like marijuana", which certain cigarettes do smell like. (I forget the brand name, but I should keep them handy.)
Just be sure to bring the device, with water in it... into the court... he must identify the unit, and identify it working, producing the "Vapor" which is not smoke. Also bring a tomato and a french-fry... and state that restaurant allows nicotine within the facility, as they carry those two items. Thus, constituting harassment. (Calling the police for enforcement of a law that does not exist, and arresting someone or ticketing someone without proof of a law being broken, is harassment. The cop would have to see you committing the crime, or validate the complaint by witnesses.)
Until they have vapor laws... (Which would include breathing after smoking????)... They have no legal grounds to charge you with anything criminal. Then you turn-around and call the police for the restaurant vaporizing fries, which contain nicotine, in the building, in the deep-fryer. Tell them the humidity-vapor from the cooking food is against the law. The vapor is ruining your clothing, and causing undesired private property damage to your personal possessions. There was no warning on the door, no warning after entering, and you demand justice! LOL...
Then complain about the second-hand smoke that poured out of the police vehicle, while it was parked on the property, spilling dangerous levels of Carbon monoxide into your lungs, while you were forced to stand within the proximity of the running vehicles exhaust pipe.
There is no smoke, there is not smoke-odor, and unless it was tested on the spot for a narcotic agent, there is nothing they can charge you with, except for disturbing the peace, and that can be countered for, by saying it was harassment.
It is his word against yours. If you indicate you only had water in the device... and the Cop is not a chemist, and did not perform a chemical composition test... then it is your word that wins.
You also can't be charged for "Smelling like marijuana", which certain cigarettes do smell like. (I forget the brand name, but I should keep them handy.)
Just be sure to bring the device, with water in it... into the court... he must identify the unit, and identify it working, producing the "Vapor" which is not smoke. Also bring a tomato and a french-fry... and state that restaurant allows nicotine within the facility, as they carry those two items. Thus, constituting harassment. (Calling the police for enforcement of a law that does not exist, and arresting someone or ticketing someone without proof of a law being broken, is harassment. The cop would have to see you committing the crime, or validate the complaint by witnesses.)
Until they have vapor laws... (Which would include breathing after smoking????)... They have no legal grounds to charge you with anything criminal. Then you turn-around and call the police for the restaurant vaporizing fries, which contain nicotine, in the building, in the deep-fryer. Tell them the humidity-vapor from the cooking food is against the law. The vapor is ruining your clothing, and causing undesired private property damage to your personal possessions. There was no warning on the door, no warning after entering, and you demand justice! LOL...
Then complain about the second-hand smoke that poured out of the police vehicle, while it was parked on the property, spilling dangerous levels of Carbon monoxide into your lungs, while you were forced to stand within the proximity of the running vehicles exhaust pipe.
Last edited:
But the 'charge' in this case might have nothing to do with smoking laws. From the OP's statement....
The above is just reading between the lines, but it does make sense of a non-sensical situation.
...it would appear that he was on private property owned by the restaurant. If that was the case, and he was asked by a member of staff to desist, then there is a case to answer. It really doesn't matter whether he was using an e-cig or picking his nose, the restaurant would have the right to ask him to stop. If he then refused and the police were called as a result......
The above is just reading between the lines, but it does make sense of a non-sensical situation.
I understand what you are saying about "rights". I personally think that is wrong. But what is ethically right and wrong and what is legally right and wrong is two different things many times, unfortunately.
Discrimination and harassment come into play, as a defence, if the authoritative person attempts to use unfair biased against another, on "Public property". Private property is property for private use only, such as a home. Public property is property where any uninvited individual is allowed to frequent. Restaurants, as US law dictates, are public property, and subject to non-biased fair-use to all citizens who participate in the services offered within the establishment.
If he had not purchased anything, that would be another story. However, the purchase of an item from that facility, entitled the individual to a reasonable length of stay, within the establishment that was designed for the public to frequent while consuming a purchased item from that establishment.
It is harassment when the correction of the mistaken offence was pointed-out... Yet, still the police were called. At the time when the correction was made, there was no reason for the authoritative personnel within the facility, to demand the removal of he individual. Further, the police had no right, given the correct information, without legal justification for removal, to remove the individual and force an unjust citation on the individual.
If the law is speeding, and you were not speeding, you can not be delivered and have a speeding violation enforced upon you. This is harassment, as it takes time away from your life/day, with no just-cause for the unnecessary removal of your time, or the time away from a judge, who now has to make a ruling on an offence that never happened.
However, if the police asked the person to evacuate, to stop a direct violation of civil-disorder or disruption of the peace... That is a true infraction, as the authoritative figure is "The law". (That is as bad as resisting arrest, but without the "Record".)
Like I said... without the evidence... and without an actual law against non-smoking devices... there is no case... If that was the whole case. (There was failure to mention the actual citation, which leaves us to assume.)
It is not illegal to use a nicotine inhaler in public, or in a restaurant... Or patches, or gum... all containing nicotine, and emitting a potential "Vapor", with unregulated doses into the surrounding air.
The laws for smoking, explicitly state "Ignited tobacco device". No tobacco, no ignition = no law broken. Ignition is easy to determine, as is tobacco. Clearly, the device in question does not contain any of these.
If he had not purchased anything, that would be another story. However, the purchase of an item from that facility, entitled the individual to a reasonable length of stay, within the establishment that was designed for the public to frequent while consuming a purchased item from that establishment.
It is harassment when the correction of the mistaken offence was pointed-out... Yet, still the police were called. At the time when the correction was made, there was no reason for the authoritative personnel within the facility, to demand the removal of he individual. Further, the police had no right, given the correct information, without legal justification for removal, to remove the individual and force an unjust citation on the individual.
If the law is speeding, and you were not speeding, you can not be delivered and have a speeding violation enforced upon you. This is harassment, as it takes time away from your life/day, with no just-cause for the unnecessary removal of your time, or the time away from a judge, who now has to make a ruling on an offence that never happened.
However, if the police asked the person to evacuate, to stop a direct violation of civil-disorder or disruption of the peace... That is a true infraction, as the authoritative figure is "The law". (That is as bad as resisting arrest, but without the "Record".)
Like I said... without the evidence... and without an actual law against non-smoking devices... there is no case... If that was the whole case. (There was failure to mention the actual citation, which leaves us to assume.)
It is not illegal to use a nicotine inhaler in public, or in a restaurant... Or patches, or gum... all containing nicotine, and emitting a potential "Vapor", with unregulated doses into the surrounding air.
The laws for smoking, explicitly state "Ignited tobacco device". No tobacco, no ignition = no law broken. Ignition is easy to determine, as is tobacco. Clearly, the device in question does not contain any of these.
Last edited:
That is kind of true. If you are on the sidewalk outside of a restaurant I *think* it's still considered their property. If they don't have tables outside of course no one will bother you from smoking/vaping/picking your nose outside in front of the establishment but if they have permits to seat people outside and have the seating out there then believe it or not the restaurants have jurisdiction over what they allow. For analog smokers you have to actually stand several feet from the outside tables according to some laws including in New York City. It is kind of tricky because obviously people who pass by and are not patrons of the restaurant can smoke while they walk by but if you're a patron of the restaurant you need to keep a clear distance. Not a lot of restaurants really adhere to this but I have encountered a few who do though. I was told even though I was outside the seating divider almost standing out by the street to move.
I don't want to get into the debate of ecigs being allowed because the above being said is about the jurisdication that restaurants have over their patrons. Granted the police may have attacked a different subject altogether but they may change their stance and just say that the OP was causing disorderly conduct which is well within their right to do.
I think if people are all out to raise awareness or to try and get away with vaping that they need to be clearer on laws and who has what jurisdiction while your on their premises. It's not only about laws it also about the rights of what the owners of these places have over you regardless if something is well within the law to do. A restaurant can simply ask you to leave if they think you are dressed inappropriately irregardless if you're sitting inside or outside or out of plain view. There is no law on how you should dress though is there? So the ecig applies here too, there is no law banning the use of it but if they want to ask you to leave and you don't listen and still do your thing it's perfectly legal for them to remove you.
Last edited:
kgonepostl, where do you live?
I was at a Sonic smoking regular cigarettes with some guys and talking about cars.... No one complained. Course this is Georgia...
I was at a Sonic smoking regular cigarettes with some guys and talking about cars.... No one complained. Course this is Georgia...
Rexa has a very valid point - the old statement "the management reserve the right to refuse admission" is what we're looking at here; you're on their property, they can make the rules.
This is why, when in a bar or other public place, I always first have a quick word with a member of staff to explain that I'm not smoking, but am using my personal vapouriser, and that I wanted them to know in case someone else thought I was smoking a real cigarette, and made a complaint. That extra little bit of courtesy to the owner of the establishment has always worked well for me so far. No refusals from anyone, and hence, no trouble from any other customers.
Of course, any owner would be within their rights to say they would rather I didn't. COnsider times before the smoking ban - there were still places which didn't allow smoking. At the end of the day, it's their choice, and as a guest (paying or otherwise) on their property, we must respect that.
This is why, when in a bar or other public place, I always first have a quick word with a member of staff to explain that I'm not smoking, but am using my personal vapouriser, and that I wanted them to know in case someone else thought I was smoking a real cigarette, and made a complaint. That extra little bit of courtesy to the owner of the establishment has always worked well for me so far. No refusals from anyone, and hence, no trouble from any other customers.
Of course, any owner would be within their rights to say they would rather I didn't. COnsider times before the smoking ban - there were still places which didn't allow smoking. At the end of the day, it's their choice, and as a guest (paying or otherwise) on their property, we must respect that.
That is only half correct... They MUST have it published, in clear view, to be legal or enforceable. Otherwise it is discrimination. By sign, or contract, or public notice.
SIGN: "No refunds", for instance... is fine, but certain items and services are still subject to a refund, even with a sign.
SIGN: "Dress code...", must be present, or you may frequent within the dress-code of the law. (For restaurants, shoes/sandals, shirts/blouses, and pants/skirts required.)
SIGN: "No Jews", obviously not enforceable even if posted or not posted, on public property. (On private property, like a home or non-business, this is allowable. But not in any public or private business.)
Private business, is one which has no public access, such as a road-paving company, bridge-repair, landscaping, construction contractor. If it has a public-access area, it is a public business, and public property. (For liability reasons and for law reasons.)
There is one exception to the rule... "Private Clubs", which are "Limited public access". They can impose specific limitations that are beyond the scope of public business law. Such as, they can allow smoking inside, and drinking, and stripping, and gambling, with the adequate permits.
When you register with the state/government as a business, you agree to "Public sales law", and "US currency law". You will not refuse service to anyone, without just cause. You will not refuse US currency for any reason, for "All debits public and private", as indicated on US federal bank-notes.
Failure to follow those, and other "Business" rules, is a violation of US policy. You are given the right to sell, using US currency, if you follow those rules.
Businesses are not their own kingdoms. Private businesses are not "Private sales", as they must sell to the public, which requires "Public access", which requires, "Public space", thus, making the sale-area, "Public property".
There are things a business can, and can't say, enforce, do, and not be breaking the law themselves. (Just because they do it, does not justify the actions. Civil infractions can be handled on the spot, by any individual, but can only be enforced by an officer of the law, and can only be tried by a judge in the event of question.)
Once these e-cigs become more understood, and accepted, you will see new laws form, or more public knowledge of what you can't enforce with these products. (It will take years before these can rightfully be banned like cigarettes. However, it could take years before these are accepted as "Not-smoking", as long as visible smoke-like vapor emanates from them. That is the other reason I dilute with distilled water... less vapor seen, and more nicotine in my mouth.)
Also note... non-gated business driveways and parking-lots, are "Public access", areas also. If you speed, you can get a ticket on private property, while driving on a private-drive that is not-gated. This is what makes it legal for employees and delivery vehicles to use them without fear of being arrested for trespassing. However, a private home-driveway, without a gate, is private property, and this is why delivery vehicles do not have rights to enter the driveway, except in emergency, or with permission through contract. (However, if you fall and hurt yourself... you must sue the private owner, for faulty or neglectful care of the public access drive. Should that be the case. EG, you would not sue the state for being hurt on public property.)
Last edited:
This is technically correct in most areas. However, I believe you may be confusing Civil Law with Criminal Law.
In Texas, if the owner of the property (or representative thereof) asks you to leave, and you do not, you're committing an offense known as Criminal Trespass. It doesn't matter why I ask you to leave, to be perfectly frank I don't have to explain my reason to either you or the police. The moment I ask you're under the legal obligation to leave. If you fail to do so I can physically eject you from the property. If you resist (and I don't feel like a physical altercation, normally for legal purposes) I can contact local law enforcement and have you ejected from the property and, in most cases, press charges for Criminal Trespass.
Whether or not you are actually arrested at the time of the offense is normally determined by your attitude and physical condition (intoxicated, etc...) when the officer is removing you from the property.
Now, when it's all said and done you can scream about how unfair it is, about how you were discriminated against, until the cows come home. You can picket my business, you can file a complaint with the appropriate regulatory office, you can appear on Fox News and tell your story to the public. Heck, you can even file a civil suit in court if you can locate/fabricate enough evidence to go to trial.
But you're still going to be dealing with a Criminal Trespass charge.
I was looking at the new janty thing, could just tell someone that was an inhaler, maybe that is what we should rename them, that way when someone asks, you say this is just my inhaler
In the woodshop at the scupture building, my professor asked if I was smoking. I said "No. This is not a cigaratte. It is a machine."
T
trashling
Guest
I have the ScrewDriver and I also own a '67 VW Bus .. I am anxiously awaiting the day that a cop pulls up next to me and I can take a hit off my crack pipe!" Someone will probably have to bail me outta jail but it will be something to tell the grandkids.
You can for sure Sonics. This is serious harassment, that is ilegal.
You cant just call the police for someone you dont like and isnt doing anything wrong.
harassment is ilegal and that is what I heard from the idiot from sonic and from the police as well withou giving you 2 minutes to explain which is heavy abuse or police force. They cannot just fire and then ask if someone is guilty.
You cant just call the police for someone you dont like and isnt doing anything wrong.
harassment is ilegal and that is what I heard from the idiot from sonic and from the police as well withou giving you 2 minutes to explain which is heavy abuse or police force. They cannot just fire and then ask if someone is guilty.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
