• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

LEO Harrasment / Trespass

Support The 2nd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
132
Location
, ,
imported post

Guys:



I built a very UGLY, but effective bullet catch. It’s quite large, but it is behind my garage and CANNOT be seen from the roadway.



To make a long story short, LEO came on my property and took pictures of what was behind my garage (my bullet stop). They are trying to make me get rid of the bullet stop.



Can LEO come on my land any time, without a warrant, and take pictures?



I live in a fairly rural area and my local township has an “unsightly” nuisance ordinance. You know, one of those if it’s ugly, we don’t want to see it type ordinances.



Not REALLY an open carry question, but I was hoping someone could shed some light on this.
 

Ohio Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
346
Location
Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
imported post

I'm not sure about the LEO going on your land. Seems I read somewhere that an LEO is allowed to walk on your land around your house, but they cannot enter your main dwelling without a warrant or your permission.



At any rate, I wouldn't be overly concerned by the fact that he walked onto your land. What I would be concerned about is the reason for them wanting you to get rid of the bullet trap. Is there a law against discharging a firearm where you live? Is the shooting range putting anyone at risk of serious injury or death? If the answer is "no" to each of these questions, tell them to mind their own business or you'll press harassment charges.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

How do you know they did this? I assume they didn't ask first?

What is the wording of the ordinance?

Are the LEO's ugly and unsightly themselves?
 

Support The 2nd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
132
Location
, ,
imported post

I know because I got a citation for violating the ordinance.

I know, because as part of the discovery documents (I fighting the citation) they delivered pictures to me showing the "violation." Pictures that COULDN'T have been taken without being in my yard as the trap is not visible from the public roadway.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

Support The 2nd wrote:
I know because I got a citation for violating the ordinance.

I know, because as part of the discovery documents (I fighting the citation) they delivered pictures to me showing the "violation." Pictures that COULDN'T have been taken without being in my yard as the trap is not visible from the public roadway.

could well have been taken by code enforcement personnel.

are you violating the ordinance?
 

Support The 2nd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
132
Location
, ,
imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:
Seems I read somewhere that an LEO is allowed to walk on your land around your house, but they cannot enter your main dwelling without a warrant or your permission.

Are you serious? LEO can come on anyones property, any time, for any reason, no warrant?
 

Support The 2nd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
132
Location
, ,
imported post

ilbob wrote:
Support The 2nd wrote: could well have been taken by code enforcement personnel.

are you violating the ordinance?

That's what we are going to figure out in court.

If the bullet trap where visible from the roadway, YES I believe it would be a valid violation.

If it is NOT visible from public property, the only way to have gotten the pics was to be on MY private property.

Can they trespass without a warrant? Where's the due process here?
 

Ohio Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
346
Location
Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
imported post

Support The 2nd wrote:
Ohio Patriot wrote:
Seems I read somewhere that an LEO is allowed to walk on your land around your house, but they cannot enter your main dwelling without a warrant or your permission.

Are you serious? LEO can come on anyones property, any time, for any reason, no warrant?

IANAL, so take this for what it is worth. But I have read that an LEO, or any LE agency (e.g. FBI, CIA, ATF) is allowed to set up surveillance on your property as long as they're not in the "immediate living and recreational area" of the dwelling. In other words, they cannot stand 5 feet from your living room window and take pictures, but they are allowed to stand 100 feet away in the bushes and take pictures, even if the bushes are on your property.



I forget where I read this. I think it was in a book written by Boston T. Party.
 

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

Ugly? Very subjective and I would hope that you stop saying it is ugly. Can anyone in the area see it? Did someone complain about it to get LE to come out? Is it possible to build an extension onto your garage to cover it when not in use? I can see from the other posts that there are more questions to be answered.

The location of sheds can be a problem here but it usually takes for someone to complain. The majority are not located per code so when the demand was made to move it my friend said okay. He then asked the inspector to follow him and start writing complaints, few if any had their sheds located ten feet from the property line. After pointing out several nonconformity's the guy asked, "are you really going to file complaints?" "You bet I am." His shed ended up staying where it was.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I think you may have an action in tresspass as a civil or criminal matter under state law - but as far as any enforceable fourth amendment violation, under the "open fields" doctrine, evidence obtained by police without entering your home or curtilage is not normally suppressed if they are prosecuting you criminally.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

Unless they went over a fence or past a proper "no trespassing" sign to get where they took the pictures,I don't see how it is trepassing.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

943.13 Trespass to land. (1e) In this section:
(a) “Dwelling unit” means a structure or that part of a structure
which is used or intended to be used as a home, residence or sleeping
place by one person or by 2 or more persons maintaining a
common household, to the exclusion of all others.
(az) “Implied consent” means conduct or words or both that
imply that an owner or occupant of land has given consent to
another person to enter the land.
(b) “Inholding” means a parcel of land that is private property
and that is surrounded completely by land owned by the United
States, by this state or by a local governmental unit or any combination
of the United States, this state and a local governmental
unit.
(c) “Local governmental unit” means a political subdivision of
this state, a special purpose district in this state, an instrumentality
or corporation of the political subdivision or special purpose district
or a combination or subunit of any of the foregoing.
(d) “Place of employment” has the meaning given in s. 101.01
(11).
(e) “Private property” means real property that is not owned
by the United States, this state or a local governmental unit.
(f) “Open land” means land that meets all of the following criteria:
1. The land is not occupied by a structure or improvement
being used or occupied as a dwelling unit.
2. The land is not part of the curtilage, or is not lying in the
immediate vicinity, of a structure or improvement being used or
occupied as a dwelling unit.
3. The land is not occupied by a public building.
4. The land is not occupied by a place of employment.
(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class
B forfeiture:
(a) Enters any enclosed, cultivated or undeveloped land of
another, other than open land specified in par. (e) or (f), without
the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant.
(am) Enters any land of another that is occupied by a structure
used for agricultural purposes without the express or implied consent
of the owner or occupant.
(b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been
notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the
premises.
(e) Enters or remains on open land that is an inholding of
another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not
to enter or remain on the land.
(f) Enters undeveloped private land from an abutting parcel of
land that is owned by the United States, this state or a local governmental
unit, or remains on such land, after having been notified by
the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the land.
(1s) In determining whether a person has implied consent to
enter the land of another a trier of fact shall consider all of the circumstances
existing at the time the person entered the land,
including all of the following:
(a) Whether the owner or occupant acquiesced to previous
entries by the person or by other persons under similar circumstances.
(b) The customary use, if any, of the land by other persons.
(c) Whether the owner or occupant represented to the public
that the land may be entered for particular purposes.
(d) The general arrangement or design of any improvements
or structures on the land.
(2) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant
within the meaning of sub. (1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been
notified personally, either orally or in writing, or if the land is
posted. Land is considered to be posted under this subsection
under either of the following procedures:
(a) If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least 2 conspicuous
places for every 40 acres to be protected. The sign must
carry an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the
notice followed by the word “owner” if the person giving the
notice is the holder of legal title to the land and by the word “occupant”
if the person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title
but is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate signs
as provided in this paragraph were erected or in existence upon the
premises to be protected prior to the event complained of shall be
prima facie proof that the premises to be protected were posted as
provided in this paragraph.
(b) If markings at least one foot long, including in a contrasting
color the phrase “private land” and the name of the owner, are
made in at least 2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected.
(3) Whoever erects on the land of another signs which are the
same as or similar to those described in sub. (2) without obtaining
the express consent of the lawful occupant of or holder of legal
title to such land is subject to a Class C forfeiture.
(3m) An owner or occupant may give express consent to enter
or remain on the land for a specified purpose or subject to specified
conditions and it is a violation of sub. (1m) (a) or (am) for a
person who received that consent to enter or remain on the land
for another purpose or contrary to the specified conditions.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a representative of a
labor union from conferring with any employee provided such
conference is conducted in the living quarters of the employee and
with the consent of the employee occupants.
(4m) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person entering the land, other than the residence or other
buildings or the curtilage of the residence or other buildings, of
another for the purpose of removing a wild animal as authorized
under s. 29.885 (2), (3) or (4).
(b) A hunter entering land that is required to be open for hunting
under s. 29.885 (4m) or 29.889 (7m).
(c) A person entering or remaining on any exposed shore area
of a stream as authorized under s. 30.134.
(5) Any authorized occupant of employer−provided housing
shall have the right to decide who may enter, confer and visit with
the occupant in the housing area the occupant occupies.
History: 1971 c. 317; 1977 c. 173, 295; 1979 c. 32; 1983 a. 418; 1987 a. 27; 1989
a. 31; 1993 a. 342, 486; 1995 a. 45, 451; 1997 a. 248; 1999 a. 9; 2003 a. 33.
The arrest of abortion protesters trespassing at a clinic did not violate their free
speech rights. State v. Horn, 139 Wis. 2d 473, 407 N.W.2d 854 (1987).
Administrative code provisions requiring hunters to make reasonable efforts to
retrieve game birds killed or injured do not exempt a person from criminal prosecution
under sub. (1) (b) [now sub. (1m) (b)] for trespassing upon posted lands to
retrieve birds shot from outside the posted area. 64 Atty. Gen. 204.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

IIRC,generally curtilage implies an enclosed area (like a fenced in area), or one that is signed. Regardless of what the statute says, very few (maybe none) states support a charge of trespassing w/o either a fence or a sign, or some direct statement to an individual stating they are not permitted to be on the land.


In any case, its not relevant to whether his bullet trapcomplies withlocalcodes.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

WOW, I learn something new here every day.

AHUNTER can be convicted of trespass in Wisconsin even if the property isn't posted.

From the posts I've seen here thus far, and from what I've been able to find, it looks like in Wisconsin, LEO can walk up you driveway and look around in your yard to his/her hearts content andwe have NO recourse.

Amazing.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Yes on the hunter but where do you find the exception for LEO?

We Islanders are annually amazed by how many hunters think that there is public land to speak of on the Island. Yes there is some but with the deer AND the hunters then the public land will be crowded, shoulder to shoulder.

And they walk four abreast up my road to the five-ish acres of lawn at the park trying to convince me that they wouldn't - no siree! - chase a wounded deer on to private property. We neighbors hunt each others land but that's all.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

66.0119(2)
(2) A peace officer may apply for, obtain and execute a special inspection warrant issued under this section. Except in cases of emergency where no special inspection warrant is required, special inspection warrants shall be issued for inspection of personal or real properties which are not public buildings or for inspection of portions of public buildings which are not open to the public only upon showing that consent to entry for inspection purposes has been refused.

In other words refusal to allow entry onto your property for inspection of zoning ordinance compliance is in itself probable cause and justifies the warrant. The trespass statute apparently doesn't apply.

As I said before statutes exist only for the purpose of restricting personal freedoms and rights and for augmenting the existance of a police state. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court said in p39 of Hamdan "In this state, constitutiopnal rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power." Those words sure fell on deaf ears in the law enforcement community.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Thank you for the citation and that it included some context. I found .0119(1)a interesting because it provided a definition for a phrase not subsequently used - "Inspection purposes"
includes such purposes as building, housing, electrical, plumbing, heating, gas, fire, health, safety, environmental pollution, water quality, waterways, use of water, food, zoning, property assessment, meter and obtaining data required to be submitted in an initial site report or feasibility report under subch. III of ch. 289 or s. 291.23, 291.25, 291.29 or 291.31 or an environmental impact statement related to one of those reports. “Inspection purposes” also includes purposes for obtaining information specified in s. 196.02 (5m) by or on behalf of the public service commission.
that does not mention 'nuisance'. (No, I did not follow all of the references.)

And while .0119 does seem to provide for some LEO trespass, there is no exception for LEO in 943.13 Trespass to land, making it a separate issue.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

Has the OP dismissed the possibility that someone else took the pctures? Like a neighbor who can see the blight from his yard?
 
Top