Ohio law requires only that the notification to leave be reasonable, not the underlying reason for making the request.” Dressler v. Rice, 739 Fed.Appx. 814, 821 (6th Cir.2018); (“[t]he elements of R.C. 2911.21, criminal trespass, do not require that the owner of private property establish why he wants a defendant to leave the premises,” but the statute “only requires that the alleged trespasser refuses to leave the premises when told to do so”).
Wickliffe v. Bennett
2022 – Ohio – 4471
Eleventh District Appellate Court
Lake County, Ohio
December 12, 2022
Mr. Babar Bhatti testified that, in the early morning hours of Sunday July 25, 2021, he was working at the front desk of the Quality Inn on Euclid Avenue in Wickliffe, Ohio. A woman came in and rented the only remaining room in the hotel for $75 in cash. She returned to the desk a few minutes later complaining that the room lock was not working. Since there were no other rooms available, Mr. Bhatti refunded the money. However, the woman wanted to return to the room to go to bed. Mr. Bhatti asked her not to do that. The woman said she did not care. Mr. Bhatti told her that he would call the police, but she ignored him and returned to the room.
The door lock on room #241 at the Quality Inn, 28611 Euclid Avenue, Wickliffe, Ohio was broken, yet Ms. Taneshe Bennett still wanted to stay. In fact she refused to leave and was arrested for trespass. Was the arrest lawful?
Officer Daniel Rosen of the Wickliffe Police Department testified that at approximately 1:57 a.m. on July 25, 2021, he received a dispatch regarding an “unwanted guest” at the Quality Inn. He spoke with Mr. Bhatti at the scene and was provided a copy of the guest’s identification identifying her as Ms. Taneshe Bennett. Officer Rosen, accompanied by another officer, Officer Budzicki, was directed to room #241. He found Ms. Bennett in the room and advised her that she could not stay because “the hotel deemed that the room was not fit to be rented.” She responded by “repeatedly telling us that she had a receipt for the room and she had paperwork and that she was not leaving.” Officer Rosen explained that her money had been refunded, the room was not fit to be rented, there were no other rooms available, and she would have to leave. Ms. Bennett refused.
Officer Rosen summoned another officer, Officer Sabrino. Ms. Bennett made the comment that “she had a gun to protect herself.” At this point Ms. Bennett was placed in handcuffs. Officer Rosen searched her bags for a gun but did not find one. Ms. Bennett said she was joking about the gun. She was being uncooperative and refused to stay seated as ordered. The officers decided to place her under arrest for Criminal Trespassing, “since it was clear that she was not going to leave the room voluntarily.”
Officer Ryan Budzicki of the Wickliffe Police Department testified that he responded to the dispatch to the Quality Inn on the night in question. He affirmed that Ms. Bennett was uncooperative and refused to leave the room. She refused to remain seated while her bags were being searched. And, when they tried to remove her, she went slack so that he and Officer Sabrino had to carry her out of the hotel. Video of the incident from Budzicki’s body camera was played for the jury.
Ms. Bennett testified on her own behalf. Ms. Bennett claimed she was in the area to visit family in Euclid. Before renting the room at the Quality Inn, Mr. Bhatti explained that there was only one room available and that the lock was not working properly. It was a very popular evening at the Quality Inn. To reassure her, Mr. Bhatti showed her that the door could be latched from the inside and that there was a security camera outside the room. They returned to the desk, and she gave him $75 as a deposit. Mr. Bhatti returned the money and wrote “no deposit” on the receipt. After that, she went back to the room and remained there until the police came and knocked on the door. At no point, Ms. Bennett testified, did Mr. Bhatti or anyone else from the hotel ask her to leave or tell her that she could not stay. She told the police she had a gun to convince them that she could protect herself despite the broken room lock. Once the officers put her in handcuffs, they tried to forcibly make her sit in a chair and then dragged her from the room without giving her an opportunity to walk on her own. It is odd that the body camera video did not support Ms. Bennett’s testimony.
Ms. Bennett was not sure why Mr. Bhatti returned the $75. She also admitted that when a room is paid for in cash, an additional $100 deposit is required and that she never paid this deposit. It was her understanding that she would be given another room the next morning.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Ms. Bennett guilty of Criminal Trespass and Resisting Arrest.
On January 5, 2022, Ms. Bennett was sentenced as follows: For Resisting Arrest, she was fined $500 and ordered to serve 90 days in the Lake County Jail with 30 days suspended. For Criminal Trespass, she was fined $150 and ordered to serve 30 days in the Lake County Jail with 15 days suspended. The jail terms were ordered to be served concurrently and she was given credit for 38 days served. The sentence was memorialized on January 12.
Appeal
In order to find Ms. Bennett guilty of Criminal Trespass, the State was required to prove that she, “without privilege to do so,” and “[b]eing on the land or premises of another, negligently fail[ed] or refuse[d] to leave upon … being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.” O.R.C. §2911.21(A)(4).
On appeal, Ms. Bennett argues: “[T]he State did not present proper evidence that [she] trespassed … [t]he reason being that Ms. Bennett had a ‘privilege’ to be at the hotel and therefore could not have trespassed … Specifically, Ms. Bennett had a privilege to reside in the room, as [she] paid for it and was initially told she could stay. The refund and subsequent request for her to leave based on a broken lock were not sufficient to rebut said privilege.”
“‘Privilege’ means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.” O.R.C. §2901.01(A)(12). “The law in Ohio … provides that a business invitee’s privilege to remain on the premises of another may be revoked upon the reasonable notification to leave by the owner or his agents.” Marcus v. Revco Discount Drug Ctrs. Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 66090, 1994 WL 449672, *2.
Accepting the testimony of the State’s witnesses, Ms. Bennett was reasonably notified that she was no longer allowed to remain on the premises by Mr. Bhatti at the time he refunded her money. Accepting Ms. Bennett’s testimony, she was reasonably notified that she was no longer allowed to remain on the premises by the police officers when they confronted her in room 241. Massillon v. Smart, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2001CA00328, 2002- Ohio-3603, ¶ 21 (“when the officers asked appellant to leave the store, they were doing so at the request of [the store manager]” and so “it was within their authority … to request that she leave the premises”).
With respect to the sufficiency of Mr. Bhatti’s reasons for revoking her privilege to remain on the premises, “Ohio law requires only that the notification to leave be reasonable, not the underlying reason for making the request.” Dressler v. Rice, 739 Fed.Appx. 814, 821 (6th Cir.2018); (“[t]he elements of R.C. 2911.21, criminal trespass, do not require that the owner of private property establish why he wants a defendant to leave the premises,” but the statute “only requires that the alleged trespasser refuses to leave the premises when told to do so”).
Accordingly, neither the sufficiency nor the reasonableness of Mr. Bhatti’s reasons for asking Ms. Bennett to leave constitute a defense to Criminal Trespass.
Information for this article was obtained from Wickliffe v. Bennett, 2022 – Ohio – 4471.
This case was issued by the Eleventh District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Portage and Trumbull.
Lessons Learned:
- This call for service by Wickliffe Police is representative of many calls to hotels and motels that law enforcement responds each day. A guest or in this case a former guest will not leave. Once the hotel/motel employee informs the person that she is no longer a guest and a verbal warning to leave is given, the person must leave the premises. If the underlying reason is that the business is discriminatory then that is a civil matter that should be resolved in the legal process later, not in the moment. In this case, Mr. Bhatti was lawful in his actions to prevent Ms. Bennett from staying in room #241 for her own safety. If a hotel/motel room door does not lock the hotel/motel has a responsibility to assure each guest is reasonably protected and an inoperable lock is patently obvious that it is unsafe.
- Law enforcement should have the hotel/motel employee tell the soon-to-be former guest that she must leave in the presence of the officers prior to threatening arrest. The employee has the legal authority to revoke the agreement, not law enforcement. Once the revocation is communicated then law enforcement should begin with verbal threats of arrest prior to making an arrest.
- Officer Daniel Rosen, Officer Budzicki and Officer Sabrino should be commended for their actions. The officers initially tried to resolve the conflict by deescalating Ms. Bennett. However, her persistent recalcitrant behavior was only resolved by arrest. Sometimes, that is all law enforcement has to resolve conflict – arrest.
Does your agency train on Criminal Trespass?
Contact me at https://www.objectivelyreasonable.com/contact/
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and Objectively Reasonable!