Opinion ID: 196337
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Revocation of Invitation

Text: 27 Although appellants argue that the district court erred in finding probable cause for Alexis's arrest, we perceive no error. As previously noted, Alexis was arrested for criminal trespass, a misdemeanor under the applicable Massachusetts statute: 28 Whoever, without right enters or remains in or upon the ... buildings ... of another, after having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises ... shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both such fine and imprisonment.... A person who is found committing such trespass may be arrested by a ... police officer and kept in custody in a convenient place, not more than twenty-four hours, Sunday excepted, until a complaint can be made against him for the offence, and he be taken upon a warrant issued upon such complaint. 29 Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 266, Sec. 120 (emphasis added). Thus, under chapter 266, section 120, a person who remains, without right, on the property of another commits a continuing misdemeanor for which she may be subjected to a warrantless arrest by a police officer provided there is probable cause. Id. 30 The undisputed facts demonstrate that Domina expressly directed Alexis to leave the restaurant, but that Alexis nevertheless refused to leave until she and her family had finished eating. Appellants cite no authority for their implicit suggestion that Massachusetts recognizes an exception to the seemingly absolute right of a private business owner to withdraw, without cause, its implied license to enter a business establishment. Cf. State v. Tauvar, 461 A.2d 1065, 1067 (Me.1983) (Maine trespass statute permits revocation of implied invitation only where business owner has some justification for requesting removal); Model Penal Code Sec. 221.2(3)(b) (affirmative defense to criminal trespass requires evidence that premises ... open to members of the public and [defendant] complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises). Moreover, we have combed Massachusetts law for such an exception, to no avail. 31 It has been held, of course, and we do not question, that a Massachusetts business property owner may not violate the constitutional or statutory rights of its business licensees under the shield of the Massachusetts trespass statute. See Hurley v. Hinckley, 304 F.Supp. 704, 710 (D.Mass.1969) (The words 'without right' in the context of the historical concept of trespass can only mean: [']without any legal right; without any right, permission or license recognized by law as permitting an entry into the area described in the statute. ['] ... The concept [of] legal right in the context of today's constitutional developments includes any right of the plaintiffs, individually or collectively, found in the Constitution of the United States....), aff'd mem., 396 U.S. 277, 90 S.Ct. 603, 24 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Smith v. Suburban Restaurants, Inc., 374 Mass. 528, 373 N.E.2d 215, 218 (1978) (noting in libel case that [a] place of public accommodation, as members of the community might know, has an obligation to treat each member of the public equally, except for good cause) (dicta) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Lapon, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 681, 554 N.E.2d 1225, 1227 (1990) (the term without right encompasses constitutional rights). 32 Nevertheless, the Massachusetts trespass statute does not limit the power of a Massachusetts business owner summarily to revoke a business licensee's right to enter or remain upon business premises held open to the general public. See Stager v. G.E. Lothrop Theatres Co., 291 Mass. 464, 197 N.E. 86, 87 (1935) (finding that, [g]enerally speaking, a theater owner has an absolute right to revoke theater-goer's license to enter or remain on the premises); cf. Baseball Publishing Co. v. Bruton, 302 Mass. 54, 18 N.E.2d 362, 363 (1938) ([I]t is of the essence of a license [to enter private property] that it is revocable at the will of the possessor of the land.... The revocation of a license may constitute a breach of contract, and give rise to an action for damages. But it is none the less effective to deprive the licensee of all justification for entering or remaining upon the land.); Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581, 452 N.E.2d 188, 194 (1983) (stating that Massachusetts trespass statute  'protect[s] the rights of those in lawful control of property to forbid entrance by those whom they are unwilling to receive, and to exclude them if, having entered, those in control see fit to command them to leave' ) (quoting Commonwealth v. Richardson, 313 Mass. 632, 48 N.E.2d 678, 682 (1943)); see also State v. Bowman, 124 Idaho 936, 866 P.2d 193, 202 (Ct.App.1993) (in case involving business invitees who purchased movie theater tickets, holding that Idaho trespass statute does not require that the owner[s] of private property have any reason for asking trespassers to get off their land); Impastato v. Hellman Enters., Inc., 147 A.D.2d 788, 537 N.Y.S.2d 659, 661 (1989) (same). Absent some invidious ulterior purpose, therefore, once proper notice has been given by the owner, and the business licensee nonetheless remains on the property, the Massachusetts trespass statute permits arrest of the uncooperative trespasser. See Hood, 452 N.E.2d at 194. 33 Although the Massachusetts trespass statute does not enable business owners to exclude business licensees on discriminatory grounds, Hurley, 304 F.Supp. at 710, Alexis proffered no competent evidence that Domina or McDonald's, as distinguished from Leporati, sought to exclude her on the basis of her race. See supra Section II.A.1. Thus, on the record evidence, Domina acted within her lawful authority--as the person [having] lawful control of said premises, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 266, Sec. 120--in revoking Alexis's implied license to utilize McDonald's dining facilities. 34