• 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.

Gated Community - exempt from 626.9?

prcE6

New member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
96
Location
, ,
imported post

Okay so I live in a gated community. It's actually the old base housing that used to belong to McClellan AFB. We have(or are supposed to have) controlled access to our little community.

A private security company runs the main gate and patrols the grounds. As tenants, we are also advised to call the security company for armed response or the Sheriff Dept. directly for emergencies.

The property management recently sent out a letter explaining that their rent-a-cops will be pulling people over and issuing fines for traffic/parking violations.

I'm thinking that the whole complex is treated as private property in the eyes of Johnny Law. So if that's the case, does 626.9 apply?

I ask because there is an elementary school right ouside one of the gates in a high-traffic area of the property. I'm playing it safe for now and still not going within 1000' of that school.

Not looking for specific legal advice, just opinions. What you all think?
 

Legend_AB

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
67
Location
Redlands, California, USA
imported post

I would think that since it's gated and has controlled access it should be treated as

private property. If it were public property why the gate and security?
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

I think the legal boundary is whether or not tax dollars pay for upkeep on the roads. If they are private roads paid for by a private person/company/organization, then it is not public property. Remember, 626.9 specifically exempts private property.

12031, on the other hand applies to all public places - including your front yard if it's not fenced in and locked up. A good rule to follow is: if a door-to-door salesmen can walk there without breaking & entering, then it is considered public access. However, that would be up to the judge/jury to decide. All we know for sure is that simply being on private property does not exempt you from the statute. (See People v Overturf)
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

It is presently considered to be safe as private property, residence and business are exempt.

The issue right now is that a DA (shal remain nameless) is trying to get case law to say 626.9 exemptions don't count unless YOU own the property, business, or residence.
 

prcE6

New member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
96
Location
, ,
imported post

All good points, Gents. I will make a call and see who exactly maintains the roads and grounds. I believe it is the property manager, since everytime a street gets flooded, it's the local maintenance crew that comes out to deal with it. I will make sure though.

Theseus - What can I say but Damn.... That would royally suck if that DA pulls it off at trial.:uhoh: More $$ coming to your defense soon.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Theseus wrote:
It is presently considered to be safe as private property, residence and business are exempt.

The issue right now is that a DA (shal remain nameless) is trying to get case law to say 626.9 exemptions don't count unless YOU own the property, business, or residence.
By that rationale, we can UOC on public property since we, the public, own it. What a douche.
 
Top