trespass
Is it legal to revoke patronage in order to issue a trespass ban based only a hearsay
<p>The local library revoked my library privileges in order to issue a No Trespass order, based upon a verbal altercation between a staff member and myself after I refused to wear a mask.</p>
<p>Is this legal without a written order served to me by a law enforcement officer?</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<h2>If this is a private library, yes</h2>
<p>A private organisation can ban anyone from their premises providing that the reason is not or is not a proxy for a protected characteristic.</p>
<p>Engaging in a &quot;verbal altercation&quot; is not a protected characteristic so, absent other information, this would be fine.</p>
<h2>If this is a public library, yes but ...</h2>
<p>Specifically, a public library (or another public facility) could ban a disruptive individual and they would not need to involve law enforcement.</p>
<p>However, for such a ban to be <a href="https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/trespass-and-public-buildings/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">effective and enforcable</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>the ban must be for a good reason. &quot;Verbal altercation&quot; if it rises to the level of abuse of staff members is probably a good reason.</li>
<li>reasons for banning should be applied universally. It's not permissible to ban one person for the same behaviour that is tolerated from another. Of course, &quot;verbal altercation&quot; covers a wide range of behaviours from testy petulance to assault.</li>
<li>the person banned must have a chance for their side of the story to be heard and considered. This would include whether a ban based on &quot;hearsay&quot; is appropriate - that is, behaviour reported to the banner by third parties rather than being directly witnessed. The process is unlikely to be as formal as a court so strict rules of evidence like the hearsay rule are unlikely to be required.</li>
<li>the ban cannot be in response to the exercise of a First Amendment right. The First Amendment protects the content of speech but can be restricted in time, place and means of expression: for example, this is a library, a person who yells or shouts in a library is not protected by the first amendment.</li>
<li>the public facility must provide a means of conducting essential business. Some functions of a library might be considered essential, others not. For those that are, the library must make appropriate accommodations - like allowing you to access those if you wear a mask.</li>
</ul>
