I think that in the United States it is well established that an officer of the law can order the occupants of a vehicle to leave the vehicle while the officer investigates a possible crime. I’m sure that if Victor contacted an officer, he would find one willing to investigate long enough for Victor to lock the doors and drive away.
2917.11 Disorderly conduct. (Ohio revised code)
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.
Let’s assume this would not apply, once ordered to leave by the police, and he refuses, then obstructing official business can be charged.
He has NO legal right to be in or on private property without consent, so the police demanding he leave is a lawful order.
Excellent answer.
I don’t see how (4) applies, since his presence in the vehicle is not preventing its movement, nor that of the owner. But (5) I suppose applies if one can consider one’s mere presence in a stranger’s vehicle to be “physically offensive”. (It certainly serves “no lawful and reasonable purpose”, so that condition is met.)
Perhaps your conclusion is correct, but I don’t think your reasoning is sound. There are countless activities which are not explicitly protected by law as rights; that doesn’t mean that any police officer can arbitrarily make you desist from them under threat of criminal charge.
As with most such questions there will be 50 answers to your question.
While there have been many guesses here I can definitively state that in New Jersey he would be charged with 3rd degree burglary. As with many statutes the answer is not always spelled out in the writing of the statute. Sometimes its in case law and precedent. I’ll give a cite from a lawyer’s website. Note the last paragraph.
Burglary is the act of entering the structure. Any theft would be a separate charge. There is no need for a theft to occur.
(4) also states;
…upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others…
This certainly applies. If the offender has no reasonable explanation of why he is there, such as a shield from the cold, with no intent or mens rea of committing a crime, then it can assumed legally that under Terry, “criminal activity may be afoot”, and a temporary detainment for investigation is permitted, and as alley dweller said, he can be ordered out of the vehicle simply for that purpose, see Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v. Wilson. Even if a claim of a shield from the elements is proffered, an officer still can have a RS that “criminal activity may be afoot”.
True, but not here.
In CA, I know from past reading, that if a person enters a store with the prior intent to steal, that is BURGLARY.
I’m sure it’s a lot more than 50. 
There is no need for a theft, but there is a need for the perpetrator to enter “with purpose to commit an offense”. The statute you cite therefore doesn’t apply unless there is also some other crime which Ignatz has committed (or intends to commit) simply by virtue of occupying the vehicle.
It doesn’t matter if that bit applies; if any one condition in a conjunction of conditions does not apply, then the whole of it does not. The statute you quoted has “hindering or preventing the movement of persons” as a necessary condition, but it’s not met in my scenario.
What’s the typical definition of criminal theft statutes? Ignatz isn’t physically preventing Victor from driving away, but he’s certainly preventing Victor from enjoying his car fully; and Ignatz is preventing Victor from doing things with his car (giving a bunch of people a ride) that he might want to do in the future.
If I were a DA and could fit Ignatz into a trespassing statute, that’s what I’d prefer, but maybe theft would work?
Since no “reasonably prudent person” would enter their car with Mr. X in it under threat of physical harm or kidnapping, etc. they are therefore hindered from free movement in their private property
Yeah, I’ll admit that argument is pretty persuasive. I certainly wouldn’t want to get back into my car if it were occupied by a stranger who looked like he had the capacity to physically harm me. I suppose the question is whether it’s necessary that Ignatz intends to hinder Victor, or if the mere fact that Victor felt threatened (albeit reasonably so) is sufficient to determine that actual hindrance had occurred.
Unless I miss my mark even the case law will not suggest that the person seek an altenative to the offenders action.
Example, you are driving down the road and a person steps out in front of your car and refuses to move, that in and of itself violates the law. Would it be necessary for the person to simply back up or go around for a violation to stick?
The same scenario for being IN the car, the owner does not have to get in. Does the law indicate the person has no legal recourse with the police, simply because s/he can just not get in, walk to work, take a bus shopping, this would be an alternative, but does the law mandate that before one can seek on scene legal redress?
He entered the car with the purpose to deprive the owner of his property. Depending on the circumstances he could could also be harassing or also trespassing. The offense in “with the purpose to commit an offense” does not have to be theft. He would be charged with burglary in New Jersey.