georg jetson
Regular Member
Geeez. Yes. "One CAN issue one to anyone." So what.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Now is the time to file Notice of Trespasses to your law enforcement departments
- Thread starter davidmcbeth
- Start date
Geeez. Yes. "One CAN issue one to anyone." So what.
eye95
Well-known member
Just don't assume there will be no consequence for telling them to get off your land when they show up at your door--even without a warrant.
And you could be arrested or dead before you find out that they had that lawful reason simply by behaving as cavalierly as suggested in the OP.
BTW, backpedal on that OP any faster and you risk slowing the rotation of the Earth.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I can not recommend any more stridently, do not engage a LEO on your property in a manner suggested by the OP. We as OCers constantly state that physical resistance to a LEO, who is obviously acting outside the bounds of his authority, is a quick way to negative consequences being experienced by the OCer. Use the legal process to gain a redress of wrongs. The current legal climate is becoming more favorable to the citizen.
Trespassing a LEO is folly. RAS is a low hurdle for LE. Trespassing a LEO is akin to spitting into the wind in my view. There are other avenues that may be pursued to affect a change in a specific LEA. Your credibility in the eyes of the court is not diminished when you use the legal system. Gather and document facts. Obtain the services of a attorney, and approach the issue in a rational and methodical manner.
I am a citizen of my community, and I desire to have a positive image of me as a OCer to be retained by every LEO I encounter, even if that encounter occurs on my property.
A short story.
Positive interactions with a LEO are spread from one cop to the next.
Trespassing a LEO is folly. RAS is a low hurdle for LE. Trespassing a LEO is akin to spitting into the wind in my view. There are other avenues that may be pursued to affect a change in a specific LEA. Your credibility in the eyes of the court is not diminished when you use the legal system. Gather and document facts. Obtain the services of a attorney, and approach the issue in a rational and methodical manner.
I am a citizen of my community, and I desire to have a positive image of me as a OCer to be retained by every LEO I encounter, even if that encounter occurs on my property.
A short story.
Positive interactions with a LEO are spread from one cop to the next.
Tucker6900
Regular Member
Agreed. It would be one thing to obstruct, but giving them forewarning that unless they have a warrant they need to stay away, would be better advice.
REALteach4u
Regular Member
And that would be why cameras are a good thing. Cameras that are obviously intended to catch people breaking into your home will catch people trespassing as well.
Have fun proving who they are unless there's something obviously identifiable.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
While I understand the outlined purpose of issuing a no trespassing order to the police, I would like to have some proof that it has any legal effect.
I will first outline the 'power' that these notices of trespass would have against the police.
1. They could not come up to your door for a knock and talk.
2. They could not just walk onto your property to 'investigate' an old barn on your land.
3. They could still enter your property in hot pursuit
4. They could still get a warrant for obvious criminal activity, (eg you have a meth lab up against a fence along the side of
'the road', a big sign advertising a ***** house, etc)
5. They could still legally enter your land to execute a warrant and/or to serve a legal notice (eg you're being sued, have had a restraining order issued, the bank in about to steal your land)
So it would not stop the police from preforming their function but it would give those who are domiciled on the land legal cause to chase the uninvited police agents off of the land. It would not give the land owner/those who are domiciled there the ability to stop legal police work.
I will run this through a logical test with a hypothetical situation.
Basis, you own 100 acres of medium to heavily wooded/forested land with some 'bare' spots and maybe an old cabin, barn, storage container, something. Some criminals decide to use one of these shelters to grow pot on your land. You have no knowledge of the activity for one reason or any combination of reasons. I remember reading in another thread/news article, that the police can roam your land that is not close to your actively used shelters/dwellings (curtilage?) , without a search warrant. They engage in the search of your land that is not part of your curtilage, AFTER you've filed a notice of no trespass, and find the growing operation. You get charged with growing 'pot.'
Now since the search was done after you had filed the notice of no trespass, I believe that you can get that evidence thrown out because it was obtained while the officer was engaged in criminal trespass. Should not all the 'evidence' obtained during the criminal trespass be quashed? That is part of the intent behind filing a notice of trespass against all applicable government agencies.
I am not buying this whole a notice of trespass against the police/government has anything for legal weight. I believe that it should though.
Though I don't believe that the police have any authority to trespass without a warrant or being in hot pursuit in this day and age. Back in the wild west days people owned ranches that were a few or more days ride long and the same again wide. So going around a property was either impossible or extremely impracticable to go around, so there were trails/paths/roads that were used to cross properties. The land owners did not have the power to stop all those crossing the land but rather only those who had done the owner some harm (eg cattle/horse theft, destruction of a well, and/or crops). In this modern world the land properties have been broken down to fit the layouts of the roads and so there is no cause for trespass like there was in the olden days.
I will first outline the 'power' that these notices of trespass would have against the police.
1. They could not come up to your door for a knock and talk.
2. They could not just walk onto your property to 'investigate' an old barn on your land.
3. They could still enter your property in hot pursuit
4. They could still get a warrant for obvious criminal activity, (eg you have a meth lab up against a fence along the side of
'the road', a big sign advertising a ***** house, etc)
5. They could still legally enter your land to execute a warrant and/or to serve a legal notice (eg you're being sued, have had a restraining order issued, the bank in about to steal your land)
So it would not stop the police from preforming their function but it would give those who are domiciled on the land legal cause to chase the uninvited police agents off of the land. It would not give the land owner/those who are domiciled there the ability to stop legal police work.
I will run this through a logical test with a hypothetical situation.
Basis, you own 100 acres of medium to heavily wooded/forested land with some 'bare' spots and maybe an old cabin, barn, storage container, something. Some criminals decide to use one of these shelters to grow pot on your land. You have no knowledge of the activity for one reason or any combination of reasons. I remember reading in another thread/news article, that the police can roam your land that is not close to your actively used shelters/dwellings (curtilage?) , without a search warrant. They engage in the search of your land that is not part of your curtilage, AFTER you've filed a notice of no trespass, and find the growing operation. You get charged with growing 'pot.'
Now since the search was done after you had filed the notice of no trespass, I believe that you can get that evidence thrown out because it was obtained while the officer was engaged in criminal trespass. Should not all the 'evidence' obtained during the criminal trespass be quashed? That is part of the intent behind filing a notice of trespass against all applicable government agencies.
I am not buying this whole a notice of trespass against the police/government has anything for legal weight. I believe that it should though.
Though I don't believe that the police have any authority to trespass without a warrant or being in hot pursuit in this day and age. Back in the wild west days people owned ranches that were a few or more days ride long and the same again wide. So going around a property was either impossible or extremely impracticable to go around, so there were trails/paths/roads that were used to cross properties. The land owners did not have the power to stop all those crossing the land but rather only those who had done the owner some harm (eg cattle/horse theft, destruction of a well, and/or crops). In this modern world the land properties have been broken down to fit the layouts of the roads and so there is no cause for trespass like there was in the olden days.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
My state is supposed to be a common law state too, I tried to file charges with a prosecutor and were told they will only take them from LEO. I tried to have the Sheriff investigate but since the prosecutor was the one breaking the law I was told he wouldn't do anything about it, although it seemed he agreed with me.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Actually, being able to traverse a person's land to gain access to a location on the other side is still alive and well. Most notably, for beach access .. and all can traverse the land, not just the police. These exceptions are generally carved our by law (eliminating the common law) or by court order.
If the police can enter w/o a warrant to stop the destruction of evidence is another exception.
The police do not have mystical powers; they are subject to the limitations of a notice like any other.
If they wish to violate a notice then they'll need some prior law to support the violation otherwise they too are committing a criminal act.
Can they come and knock on your door w/o you having been involved or suspected of being involved in a crime (like they saw some activity on your neighbor's property) then answer is likely no. They can send you a letter, call you etc. You have no duty to assist the police so they have no right to ask (IMO).
We still have rights as property owners and one of those is to control who can be on your land...this includes controlling anyone. Some laws may carve out exceptions. Its up to the landowner to know what they are.
But there is nothing wrong with filing a notice ... anyone comes on, then call the police. If it is a policeman, then you calling the police telling them to remove the cop or ask for his arrest is completely appropriate.
If there is an exception or a claim of exception, the police on the phone will tell you ... and you can check it out...and if not true, still followup later.
You don't have to answer your door either...I have had cops knocking and I just let them knock until they go away. I always say: let them knock down the door...then you'll have evidence it was a forceful entry.
Google scholar is a resource for folks to use
ex for WA, notices are still alive in this state, as in most:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...3440&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
And a good case talking in more detail about trespass signs, discussing curtilage in WA:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...9579&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
A notice of trespass has more of a legal effect than signage IMO...I have seen cases of people entering driveways when issued a notice and they were found guilty. This closes off curtilage areas whereas signs do not.
If the police can enter w/o a warrant to stop the destruction of evidence is another exception.
The police do not have mystical powers; they are subject to the limitations of a notice like any other.
If they wish to violate a notice then they'll need some prior law to support the violation otherwise they too are committing a criminal act.
Can they come and knock on your door w/o you having been involved or suspected of being involved in a crime (like they saw some activity on your neighbor's property) then answer is likely no. They can send you a letter, call you etc. You have no duty to assist the police so they have no right to ask (IMO).
We still have rights as property owners and one of those is to control who can be on your land...this includes controlling anyone. Some laws may carve out exceptions. Its up to the landowner to know what they are.
But there is nothing wrong with filing a notice ... anyone comes on, then call the police. If it is a policeman, then you calling the police telling them to remove the cop or ask for his arrest is completely appropriate.
If there is an exception or a claim of exception, the police on the phone will tell you ... and you can check it out...and if not true, still followup later.
You don't have to answer your door either...I have had cops knocking and I just let them knock until they go away. I always say: let them knock down the door...then you'll have evidence it was a forceful entry.
Google scholar is a resource for folks to use
ex for WA, notices are still alive in this state, as in most:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...3440&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
And a good case talking in more detail about trespass signs, discussing curtilage in WA:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...9579&q="notice+of+trespass"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
A notice of trespass has more of a legal effect than signage IMO...I have seen cases of people entering driveways when issued a notice and they were found guilty. This closes off curtilage areas whereas signs do not.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
State v. Bellerouche, 120 P. 3d 971 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2005
¶ 10 This argument fails. A private property owner may restrict the use of its property so long as the restrictions are not discriminatory.[9] A person's presence may be rendered unlawful by a revocation of the privilege to be there.[10] This right to exclude exists even if the property is otherwise open to the public.[11] In State v. Kutch,[12] for example, violation of a notice banning defendant from a shopping mall for one year satisfied the unlawful entry element for a subsequent burglary charge.
¶ 11 Bellerouche bases his argument on search and seizure cases. He points out that police officers approaching a residence to investigate suspected criminal activity may look for evidence in areas that are impliedly open to the public, such as driveways.[13]
¶ 12 But these cases have no application here. Bellerouche was not a police officer on official business, and unlike the officers in these cases, Bellerouche had been served with a notice to stay off the property in question.
¶ 13 The trespass notices served on Bellerouche clearly excluded him from the Village at the Lake property. Whether or not its driveway may be impliedly open to the public for some other purpose, it was not open to Bellerouche. There was ample evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Bellerouche guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree.
Eye, its in your court now...
¶ 10 This argument fails. A private property owner may restrict the use of its property so long as the restrictions are not discriminatory.[9] A person's presence may be rendered unlawful by a revocation of the privilege to be there.[10] This right to exclude exists even if the property is otherwise open to the public.[11] In State v. Kutch,[12] for example, violation of a notice banning defendant from a shopping mall for one year satisfied the unlawful entry element for a subsequent burglary charge.
¶ 11 Bellerouche bases his argument on search and seizure cases. He points out that police officers approaching a residence to investigate suspected criminal activity may look for evidence in areas that are impliedly open to the public, such as driveways.[13]
¶ 12 But these cases have no application here. Bellerouche was not a police officer on official business, and unlike the officers in these cases, Bellerouche had been served with a notice to stay off the property in question.
¶ 13 The trespass notices served on Bellerouche clearly excluded him from the Village at the Lake property. Whether or not its driveway may be impliedly open to the public for some other purpose, it was not open to Bellerouche. There was ample evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Bellerouche guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree.
Eye, its in your court now...
eye95
Well-known member
Nah. I've moved on.
I pointed out the danger of your crap. Those who will listen have been forewarned. Those who won't (and you) will likely suffer the consequences (and then complain about the injustice of it) of foolish actions.
Whether you listen or not (I know you won't) is of little consequence to me. If you suffer because of foolish actions, we can just hold you up as an example to others.
*lets the ball go on by--doesn't care anymore*
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
I pointed out the danger of your crap. Those who will listen have been forewarned. Those who won't (and you) will likely suffer the consequences (and then complain about the injustice of it) of foolish actions.
Whether you listen or not (I know you won't) is of little consequence to me. If you suffer because of foolish actions, we can just hold you up as an example to others.
*lets the ball go on by--doesn't care anymore*
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
davidmcbeth
Banned
What is a consequence of dialing the police and telling them you have a trespasser on your land? Well, I'm waiting.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
You, by calling them, have invited them onto your land. Even if it is a limited invitation.
palerider116
Regular Member
Then the awful dilemma may arise that you call the police because there is an emergency but you have banned them through a trespass notice. How can the officer be sure it is the legal custodian that called them for an emergency?
What does the officer do? I'd err on the side of caution and not risk the legal headache or administrative complaint.
It's all very comical in my eyes. I've knocked on doors to check on elderly parents whose children cannot get in touch with them or serve death notifications to relatives who have no idea my presence is concerning a deceased loved one. This whole mentality that all of the "fuzz" is corrupt is old and small minded.
What does the officer do? I'd err on the side of caution and not risk the legal headache or administrative complaint.
It's all very comical in my eyes. I've knocked on doors to check on elderly parents whose children cannot get in touch with them or serve death notifications to relatives who have no idea my presence is concerning a deceased loved one. This whole mentality that all of the "fuzz" is corrupt is old and small minded.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Please read the outline I presented that shows when the notice of trespass would have no legal effect.
I believe that serving a notice of death is serving a legal notice.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
I have re-read your postings and actually caused me to provide legal authorities ... the notice to government officials would have the same effect as issuing it to a regular citizen....
Please show authorities that back you your claim that a notice would have no effect ... I would be interested in reading them.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
RCW 9A.52.090
Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.
Check your state's laws.
I did not say that it would have NO LEGALLY EFFECT only that it would not stop the police from performing their legal duties.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
Police normally do not perform process service ... but yes, this would be an exception ..
It would keep the cops off your property just to ask you questions ..
It would keep the cops off your property just to ask you questions ..
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
If you request someone to come on to your land, you are granting temporary license. So maybe file your notice of trespass but, be careful with your wording so as to not shoot yourself in the foot.
I, personally, like the idea behind it. I just would not want to see anyone 'hurt' over this.