LEO Question RE: Mask Mandates

[MOTOR51]

the truth shall set you free!!!!!! from your job, social setting, carrer, ect lol

come on man i thought i chummed the water and baited the hook good!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[4-14]

All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.

The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.

It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?

I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.

 

[Bigchillin83]

All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.

The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.

It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?

I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.

well we sure are glad you came and stopped by...lol

 

[4-14]

My bad, I thought it was a discussion.

 

[CajunTrooper]

All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.

The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.

It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?

I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.

Because there is no other statute for the individual person that I am aware of. According to the Governor’s Mandate (Section 3-E), the Board of Health will issue citations to the individual business. So essentially he is, in my opinion, pushing the enforcement on each individual business. If you refuse to put your mask on after being asked by a business, asked to leave, and refuse to leave, then the business could have law enforcement involved whereby the person could be cited or arrested for Entering and Remaining After Being Forbidden.

My wife’s hairdresser was cited last week by the Board of Health although the La Board of Cosmetology’s website said last week that masks were recommended. The agent cited that they follow the Governor’s mandate. My wife indicated that she thought the fine was $25 per person / violation which is a hefty fine for a hairdresser times 8 people or so.

Reference: Governor’s Proclamation
https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2021/137JBE2021StateofEmergency.pdf

 

[Bigchillin83]

My bad, I thought it was a discussion.

ohhh it is, thats why you clearly stated that only 1 person contributed to the correct answer of the OP's question.. well you also... so lets make it 2

 

[MOTOR51]

All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.

The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.

It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?

I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.

There have been several comments saying the same thing you just said, not sure what you are talking about. You will be charged for remaining after being forbidden due to not wearing a mask under the guidelines of the governor at the request of the business owner. Is that better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[4-14]

There have been several comments saying the same thing you just said, not sure what you are talking about. You will be charged for remaining after being forbidden due to not wearing a mask under the guidelines of the governor at the request of the business owner. Is that better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

im saying that may only work when the business agrees with the mandate. But if they don’t then what?

 

[MOTOR51]

im saying that may only work when the business agrees with the mandate. But if they don’t then what?

The fire Marshall was enforcing those mandates last time when owners were not doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[4-14]

The fire Marshall was enforcing those mandates last time when owners were not doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

the OP is asking under what statute…

 

[CajunTrooper]

the OP is asking under what statute…

The businesses are more than likely being cited with a civil penalty under the health code, not a criminal statute. Whether it be the Fire Marshall or Board of Health.

 

[JBP55]

the OP is asking under what statute…

RS 14:63.3 as stated earlier in this this thread.

 

[4-14]

RS 14:63.3 as stated earlier in this this thread.

You can’t be charged with that if the business allows you there.

- - - Updated - - -

The businesses are more than likely being cited with a civil penalty under the health code, not a criminal statute. Whether it be the Fire Marshall or Board of Health.

makes sense.

 

[jsg34]

Louisiana Revised Statutes 29:724 (E) Powers of the Governor

E. In the event of an emergency declared by the governor pursuant to this Chapter, any person or representative of any firm, partnership, or corporation violating any order, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to this Chapter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both. No executive order, proclamation, or regulation shall create or define a crime or fix penalties.

 

[JBP55]

You can’t be charged with that if the business allows you there.

Which is common knowledge.

 

[machinedrummer]

I’m not worried about what happens in a private business. I would really be concerned if arrest or tickets could be handed out while out in public such as walking your dog down the sidewalk. If we get to that point then I would hope LE would not follow orders.

 

[MOTOR51]

I’m not worried about what happens in a private business. I would really be concerned if arrest or tickets could be handed out while out in public such as walking your dog down the sidewalk. If we get to that point then I would hope LE would not follow orders.

Did they last time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[machinedrummer]

Like I said IF we get to that point I would hope LE would not follow that type of order. I don’t live in an area that has that type of orders. Not sure if they exist anywhere. I think it’s possible that type of order could come down from some local tyrant and if it does I would hope it wouldn’t be enforced.