Pixiq

If a person has the permission of the property owner to be on the property, by definition it is not trespassing.

To make a lawful arrest for trespassing, police would need to have, at a minimum, probable cause to believe the person does not have permission to be on the property. Under the criminal trespass statutes of most jurisdictions police would also need probable cause to believe that the person had notice or actual knowledge that he or she was not allowed on the property (and intent is a general requirement of most criminal statutes as well).

I remember reading the same blog. I'm not an attorney, but I think it was cited that trespassing charges had to come from the property owner and not from the police.

So if you do get arrested for trespassing, and actually have the owner's permission, I guess you can file suit for wrongful arrest?

Up here in Canada, the land of Please and Thank You. I used to work at a liquor store and needed to be semi-versed with the spirit of the law at least. I could refuse service to anyone. I demanded ID if the age even looked young. I was pretty accurate on estimating ages but that wasn't allowed and if an inspector was in line I valued my job and didn't want the $10K fine.

The technical parts were three stages. Verbal trespass warning first, stating why the warning is issued and verbal request to leave the premises. Second was a written warning which if they wouldn't sign I would refuse all access to our store. Sign it and behave and no problems. Third warning followed with legal options and involving the police for enforcement and total loss of all access to our business.

I never had to have anyone sign for the second stage. People were polite after, usually. I had the legal documents which were not ambiguous in anyway. So clear it wasn't hard to comply. It was annoying that I would have to card a usual customer who was just over 18. It sucked because it was a waste of time but law demanded it. If I've carded you before, bring it next time anyways. Don't drink to excess before either, same fines for me AND him in that situation. Went through night school for software programming with that job.

People aren't cuffed within 45 seconds when the police falsely believe they can presume my wishes.

Well, first of all, the British Royal family isn't really my responsibility. However, our own Royal family has visited the United States at several times (King Harald more or less grew up in the White House, courtesy of mrs. Roosevelt during the war), and I'll take responsibility of that.

The thing is, we can't really keep them from traveling to other nations.

And yes, most of us keep them in quite high regard.

Because one of them will be the future King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The other will be the future Queen of said Kingdom.

In any case, they are foreign dignitaries, and as the Duke represents a close ally of the United States, an ally that has been a very solid supporter of US foreign policy for the last 7 decades, there is always the feeling one shouldn't skimp on honoring them. Heck, there might even be a potential treath to them (I suppose Special Branch and the US Secret Service has the primary responsibility for security, but local law enforcement are usually involved, I understand).

Short version: He's the second in line to the British throne, and Britain is a close ally of the United States, with potential security concerns by itself.