Cleveland v. Dickerson, 60 N.E.3d 686

In March 2014 Nedra Dickerson and her son Aaron Hendon were cited for criminal trespass at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport after police ordered them to leave the baggage-claim area; both refused and were arrested.
Officers testified they warned the pair not to loiter and told them they could be arrested if they did not leave; Dickerson allegedly said “Arrest me,” and Hendon said he would “go to jail.”
Defendants (both homeless) testified they were at the airport to use/rest near the restroom, denied being asked to leave, and disputed officers’ characterization.
The municipal court found both guilty of criminal trespass (CCO 623.04 / R.C. 2911.21(A)(4)), fined and placed them on nine months’ probation with a condition that Dickerson have no contact with the airport except for a “lawful purpose.”
On appeal the Eighth District (en banc) affirmed: evidence was sufficient and verdicts were not against the manifest weight; the probation condition was within the court’s discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (City)	Defendant's Argument (Dickerson / Hendon)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendants "refused or failed to leave" after notice	Officers warned them to leave; their verbal refusals completed the offense	Officers lacked proof defendants lost privilege to be on public airport property; initial conduct was lawful (restroom use)	Affirmed — testimony showed clear notice and refusal; sufficient evidence to convict
Privilege to be on public property and whether privilege can be revoked without reason	An owner/agent can revoke implied privilege on public property and need not state a reason	Revocation requires some showing that implied consent was void (relying on Marcoplos)	Affirmed — Ohio statute does not require the state to prove the agent’s reason for revocation; privilege can be revoked by agent’s order
Whether prosecution had to prove reasonableness of officers’ revocation	Not required by R.C. 2911.21(A)(4); motive irrelevant	City must show officers had a reasonable/basis to revoke implied consent	Affirmed — motive or basis is immaterial under the statute; evidence still showed defendants had no privilege after being ordered to leave
Validity / breadth of probation condition (no contact with airport except for "lawful purpose")	Condition is authorized by R.C. 2929.25; "lawful purpose" is clear and not overly broad	Condition is vague / overbroad	Affirmed — court acted within discretion; phrase "lawful purpose" is unambiguous in context

Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (state sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (public property status does not preclude trespass liability)
Casey, 140 Ohio St.3d 1415 (prosecution bears burden to prove lack of privilege in trespass cases)
Lyons v. Ohio, 18 Ohio St.3d 204 (absence of privilege distinguishes trespass from lawful presence)