State v. Gilbert, 2020 Ohio 1641

On Feb. 14, 2019 Gilbert boarded a Springfield public bus with his service dog; after paying he objected when the driver raised the kneeling bus before he was seated.
Gilbert refused repeated orders from the driver to sit or exit and moved to an area where passengers are not allowed to stand; the dispatcher instructed the driver to tell Gilbert to sit or get off or call police.
Police arrived, gave Gilbert the same ultimatum; he refused, was physically removed after resisting, and was arrested for criminal trespass (R.C. 2911.21(A)(4)) and resisting arrest.
At the close of the State’s case the defense moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29, arguing a motor vehicle (the bus) is not "land or premises" under the trespass statute; the trial court granted the motion and acquitted on both counts.
The State appealed only the trespass dismissal, arguing the statutory definition of "land or premises" (which includes "place") covers vehicles such as a public bus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a public bus is a "land or premises" (R.C. 2911.21(F)(2)) such that refusal to leave can constitute criminal trespass	The statutory phrase "land or premises" expressly includes any "place," so a bus is a "place" and falls within the trespass statute	"Premises" historically excludes personal property and motor vehicles; Finnegan and similar cases support that a vehicle is not "premises"	The appellate court held "place" in the statute reasonably and ordinarily includes a vehicle; the trial court erred in acquitting on that basis

State v. Finnegan, 8 Ohio App.3d 432 (1st Dist. 1983) (concluded statutory "premises" did not encompass motor vehicles)
State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (double jeopardy bars retrial after acquittal)
State v. Joseph, 195 Wash.App. 737 (Wash. Ct. App.) (statute construing building/place can expressly include vehicles; used as persuasive contrast)