My question involves criminal law for the state of: CO
COME ON GUYS! THIS TOPIC IS CLEARLY IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE ARE FINALLY TALKING ON A SERIOUS LEVEL ABOUT IT! WHY DO YOU KEEP CLOSING IT? WHAT POLICIES AM I OR OTHERS VIOLATING? IF YOU DON'T LET ME OR OTHERS KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WRONG, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS IS A GOOD, PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN, AND ARE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN. WHAT IS THE REASON YOU KEEP CLOSING IT? SERIOUSLY. WHAT POLICIES ARE WE VIOLATING? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? DO YOU THINK I'M A TROLL OR SOMETHING? A LAWSUIT SCAMMER? WHAT EVIDENCE DO HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH ALLEGATIONS? IF YOU CANNOT LIST A FORUM POLICY VIOLATION THAT YOU ARE ALSO WILLING TO LET US CORRECT OURSELVES ON, THEN KEEP THIS THREAD OPEN.
I just happen to be in the middle of responding, just like last time, to a gentleman who was finally getting down to the brass tacks with me. Here is my response to him:
Very good point, to which I agree. In my original thread I was talking about the fact that the existence of a fence only reflects the level of trespassing involved, and nothing more.
Third degree criminal trespassing reflecting the lowest form of trespassing, simply "in or upon premises of another," second degree criminal trespassing reflecting a greater form of trespassing, "in or upon the premises of another which were enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or were fenced," and first degree criminal trespassing reflecting the greatest form of trespassing, namely entering or remaining "in a dwelling of another" or "a motor vehicle with the intent to commit a crime therein."
I also agree. In my situation, with or without the fence, I believe I would not be considered trespassing, as the public right of way (the street) to which I was occupying, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, as this looks like the pivotal point) is inherently open to the public absent any valid permits to otherwise restrict access to it.
Say the nearby business owner wanted to modify the paved sidewalk instead, and had filed with the city a permit to restrict access to it by way of installing "sidewalk closed" signs around it. With a valid permit, and totally absent any fence, just like you said, I would definitely not be walking behind those signs, as I would consider myself to be trespassing into land that I had no right to occupy. However, say the sidewalk closed signs did not have a valid permit for them, and I knew that, and I even provided to the police the need-to-remove notice from the city referencing them, I do not believe that I would be considered a trespasser at that point.
According to jury instruction F:126, “enters unlawfully” or “remains unlawfully” in or upon premises is defined as "when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so." According to case law, this is framed in the negative, to which if I am interpreting such correctly, means that the police would have to substantiate first (by way of checking for valid permits) the fact that the area is indeed a restricted area, before they would have the lawful justification necessary to remove me from it. I believe this is much like the "critical" or "essential" element of unlawful required for arguable probable cause for an arrest on private property, namely the police are required to substantiate first that a private property owner has personally communicated to a subject the lawful order to not enter or remain (as well as substantiate, in addition, that the subject also actually defy said lawful order). Without establishing first some sort of evidence / information / tangible fact greater than a mere hunch of said "unlawfulness," the police lack arguable probable cause. In my case, I believe not knowing, at all, what the status of a permit is (but for arguments sake, if they know their jobs and the governing law, know that permits otherwise exist and can be found out for such things) the police would lack arguable probable cause to arrest me for public property trespassing.
So, without a valid permit to restrict the area (in this case with a fence, but like you said, an irrelevant factor) I consider the jurisdiction of the police to be lacking, until they check FIRST to see if said area has said permit (and that it's a valid one).
Is public land not inherently open to the public, absent any restriction or permit, that would otherwise make it such that those who want to use it would, only then, not be licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to use it?
COME ON GUYS! THIS TOPIC IS CLEARLY IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE ARE FINALLY TALKING ON A SERIOUS LEVEL ABOUT IT! WHY DO YOU KEEP CLOSING IT? WHAT POLICIES AM I OR OTHERS VIOLATING? IF YOU DON'T LET ME OR OTHERS KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WRONG, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS IS A GOOD, PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN, AND ARE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN. WHAT IS THE REASON YOU KEEP CLOSING IT? SERIOUSLY. WHAT POLICIES ARE WE VIOLATING? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? DO YOU THINK I'M A TROLL OR SOMETHING? A LAWSUIT SCAMMER? WHAT EVIDENCE DO HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH ALLEGATIONS? IF YOU CANNOT LIST A FORUM POLICY VIOLATION THAT YOU ARE ALSO WILLING TO LET US CORRECT OURSELVES ON, THEN KEEP THIS THREAD OPEN.
I just happen to be in the middle of responding, just like last time, to a gentleman who was finally getting down to the brass tacks with me. Here is my response to him:
Quote:
Quoting cbg
Third degree criminal trespassing reflecting the lowest form of trespassing, simply "in or upon premises of another," second degree criminal trespassing reflecting a greater form of trespassing, "in or upon the premises of another which were enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or were fenced," and first degree criminal trespassing reflecting the greatest form of trespassing, namely entering or remaining "in a dwelling of another" or "a motor vehicle with the intent to commit a crime therein."
Quote:
Quoting cbg
Say the nearby business owner wanted to modify the paved sidewalk instead, and had filed with the city a permit to restrict access to it by way of installing "sidewalk closed" signs around it. With a valid permit, and totally absent any fence, just like you said, I would definitely not be walking behind those signs, as I would consider myself to be trespassing into land that I had no right to occupy. However, say the sidewalk closed signs did not have a valid permit for them, and I knew that, and I even provided to the police the need-to-remove notice from the city referencing them, I do not believe that I would be considered a trespasser at that point.
According to jury instruction F:126, “enters unlawfully” or “remains unlawfully” in or upon premises is defined as "when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so." According to case law, this is framed in the negative, to which if I am interpreting such correctly, means that the police would have to substantiate first (by way of checking for valid permits) the fact that the area is indeed a restricted area, before they would have the lawful justification necessary to remove me from it. I believe this is much like the "critical" or "essential" element of unlawful required for arguable probable cause for an arrest on private property, namely the police are required to substantiate first that a private property owner has personally communicated to a subject the lawful order to not enter or remain (as well as substantiate, in addition, that the subject also actually defy said lawful order). Without establishing first some sort of evidence / information / tangible fact greater than a mere hunch of said "unlawfulness," the police lack arguable probable cause. In my case, I believe not knowing, at all, what the status of a permit is (but for arguments sake, if they know their jobs and the governing law, know that permits otherwise exist and can be found out for such things) the police would lack arguable probable cause to arrest me for public property trespassing.
So, without a valid permit to restrict the area (in this case with a fence, but like you said, an irrelevant factor) I consider the jurisdiction of the police to be lacking, until they check FIRST to see if said area has said permit (and that it's a valid one).
Is public land not inherently open to the public, absent any restriction or permit, that would otherwise make it such that those who want to use it would, only then, not be licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to use it?
Can You Be Charged with Trespassing for Jumping a Fence That Was Unlawfully Installed
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire