Asked for cpl while OCing

imported post

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 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.

9A.52.010 Definitions
(3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner;

imported post

We of course don't have all the information here, and have to speculate about a lot of details. As far as "unimproved property," I haven't seen a quarry in a long time that doesn't have improvements -- a gate (be it open or closed), perhaps a weigh shack, sometimes an old sign. Were any of these present, I would consider the property to be "improved."

It could also be argued that just the act of developing property into a quarry constitutes improvement -- there is usually a large investment in removing the overburden and excavating to suitable rock. If there were piles of crushed or screened rock, certainly it is obvious the land had been used and improved. The key word in the affirmative defense language that applies here is "unused." Building on the statute, would a "reasonable" person consider any quarry to be "unused?" If it went to a jury, I think it would be a crap shoot and the OP might be found guilty. Reasonable people these days seem to understand the concept of private property.

I had trespass charges pressed against a guy that crossed my property to get to the river. At the time, the only improvement on that portion of the land was a primitive road to the river. I also mowed the area a couple of times each summer. To the deputy, that was enough to constitute "improved" property. No fence, no signs.

One final point -- there is a huge difference between crossing property on foot and driving across private property -- especially if you are leaving ruts that need to be repaired. Try to defend that in court with a jury of a bunch of older citizens who don't like big 4x4s on the freeway, and my bet is you lose. If the agent of the property owner was concerned about ruts, the property must not be too "abandoned."

We can debate the language of the statute, but without more specifics we will never know exactly how it would apply to the scenario presented. Hopefully the discussion is a good wake-up for those that travel from urban/suburban to more rural areas to not assume they can enter property without express permission.

Charles

imported post

We of course don't have all the information here, and have to speculate about a lot of details. As far as "unimproved property," I haven't seen a quarry in a long time that doesn't have improvements -- a gate (be it open or closed), perhaps a weigh shack, sometimes an old sign. Were any of these present, I would consider the property to be "improved."

It could also be argued that just the act of developing property into a quarry constitutes improvement -- there is usually a large investment in removing the overburden and excavating to suitable rock. If there were piles of crushed or screened rock, certainly it is obvious the land had been used and improved. The key word in the affirmative defense language that applies here is "unused." Building on the statute, would a "reasonable" person consider any quarry to be "unused?" If it went to a jury, I think it would be a crap shoot and the OP might be found guilty. Reasonable people these days seem to understand the concept of private property.

I had trespass charges pressed against a guy that crossed my property to get to the river. At the time, the only improvement on that portion of the land was a primitive road to the river. I also mowed the area a couple of times each summer. To the deputy, that was enough to constitute "improved" property. No fence, no signs.

One final point -- there is a huge difference between crossing property on foot and driving across private property -- especially if you are leaving ruts that need to be repaired. Try to defend that in court with a jury of a bunch of older citizens who don't like big 4x4s on the freeway, and my bet is you lose. If the agent of the property owner was concerned about ruts, the property must not be too "abandoned."

We can debate the language of the statute, but without more specifics we will never know exactly how it would apply to the scenario presented. Hopefully the discussion is a good wake-up for those that travel from urban/suburban to more rural areas to not assume they can enter property without express permission.

Charles

imported post

SemperCarry,

What command do you belong to? Are you from the LSB there on Ft. Lewis? I was with Intel Support Bn, A Co., IPT 1. Worked out of the reserve bldg there. Maybe you know some of the same guys I know.

imported post

No, I am not stationed anywhere near there.

imported post

sempercarry wrote:

No, I am not stationed anywhere near there.

Click to expand...

howd he know what Command you where out of, I dont think I would ever give some tool all my info like where I worked.

imported post

We were only a few miles away from base and there is only 1 command on base with Marines.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

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 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.

9A.52.010 Definitions
(3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner;

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was talking about. I just couldn't seem to find it. Thanks for posting it.