When Breaking One Law is Necessary to Protect Another Law

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Illinois

Narrative:

Earlier this year, 2011, a friend of mine (defendant) initiated an effort requesting a hearing be held regarding gross environmental violations of a local power company dumping several tons of toxic ash on reclaimed mine property which adjoins his own, citing health concerns and especially the blatant disregard for multiple species of animals living on that reclaimed land which are found the IL state endangered species list. The Shagbark Hickory trees provide habitat to an endangered species of bat and were marked by a local Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) wildlife biologist for removal at a time not detrimental to that bats ability to procure shelter at the end of hibernation. The company neglected to clear ALL the trees, leaving plenty of suitable habitat in place for the endangered bat, yet proceeded with the initial stages of the operation anyways. My friend crossed onto the property and photographed several standing hickory trees to support his claim at the legal hearing that the company had NOT removed the habitat as they stated in their permit application. He also documented sufficient evidence of Rice Rat habitat, another IL endangered speices found on the site. The corporate party (plaintiff) is an electrical power production company who planned to dump the highly toxic left-over ashes of burned coal into a lake which supports the local ecosystems of the endangered species, as well as hundreds of other protected species.

Facts:

• The SOLE purpose of committing the tresspass violation was to gather evidence of much more serious criminal activity in progress. (described above) This was NOT a pleausre trip committed at arbitrary leisure.

• My friend stated at the hearing that he himself took the photographs of the existing habitat. (henceforth admitting to being the photographer and likewise, committing tresspass)

• I have inspected the borderline of the two properties, his property and the corporate property. NO WHERE on the border is there a "No Tresspassing" sign, "No Hunting" sign, etc, nor any related material which would alert a person to the fact that they are crossing onto corporate property. (It's reclaimed forrested woodland and looks just like everything else around here)

• The corporation was attempting to commit several environmental violations which were not readily viewable by the public. The photographs provided by my friend at the hearing were among the strongest evidence exhibited and instrumental in getting the IDNR permit to dump toxic ash revoked.

• The corporation notified my friend via postal mail a few months ago that they would be moving forward with criminal tresspass charges, but later recinded the threat. This is the second time they have moved forward the intent to prosecute him.

• The company was not fined nor had any enforcement action leveed against them other than the revocation of the original permit as a result of my friends actions.

Opinionated additions:

• Without the evidence collected by my friend and its exhibition at the hearing, the violations of environmental law and destruction of endandgered species of animals would most likely have been allowed to continue.

• I/we feel that this second effort to prosecute him for tresspass is frivilous in nature and done so out of sheer retribution for inhibiting their effort to blatantly commit gross violations of Illinois state environmental protection standards and policies in the interest of corporate greed.

Question:
Is there any kind of protection under the law which may justify committing a minor offense such as criminal tresspass, when that offense is committed solely in the face of the necessity of the circumstances and is absolutely necessary to protect something larger than yourself? (Similar to the "good faith exception"?)

generally, no but that criminal act exercised in order to obtain the evidence sought generally does not cause the information/evidence to be excluded unless the information was obtained by "the state" (police and such employees of the state where a warrant would be required to search).

There was means to obtain the information sought without committing any crimes so the excuse of it being necessary is not a valid argument.

Quote:

---

There was means to obtain the information sought without committing any crimes so the excuse of it being necessary is not a valid argument.

---

By all means, please, lets hear them.

Quote:

---

Quoting JohnnyLaw

---

By all means, please, lets hear them.

---

rent a plane, helicopter, or hot air balloon and fly over the area and take pictures preferrably using a high resolution camera

purchase high resolution pictures from Terraserver or whoever sells high resolution pictures taken from a satellite.

good enough?

Aircraft Rental: : $150/hr for the plane +$40/hr for a pilot. Helicopters and hot air balloons are not available at the local General Aviation Fixed Base Operator (FBO). Then tack on a good high-resolution camera for another couple hundred dollars. Possible? Yes. Reasonable? No. Secondly, look back at the case narrative:

Quote:

---

The Shagbark Hickory trees...were marked by a local Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) wildlife biologist for removal at a time not detrimental to that bats ability to procure shelter at the end of hibernation.

---

The bats were hibernating at the time which was, like all hibernating animals, during the winter months. Then take into account the fact that Shagbark Hickory trees are deciduous, meaning they lose their leaves in those winter months. How exactly do you suppose, that even at a very low altitude of 500 feet above ground level (which would have been legal as the site sits inside of class G airspace), a top-down aerial photograph of scattered leafless trees in amongst thousands of other leafless trees of varying species (maple, oaks, poplars, etc) would be sufficient proof to an objector that what he was looking at was in fact a Shagbark Hickory? But as you can guess by the trees name, the appearance of the bark is a readily identifiable trait and was the only suitable proof obtainable at the time to conclusively show beyond a reasonable doubt that there were in fact Shagbark Hickory trees left standing on the premesis. No top-down photograph could have possibly captured what was needed.

This likewise invalidates any possibility of using commercial satellite imagery, which often does not provide imagery at greater resolutions than 1 meter per pixel.

Looking beyond the tree issue, the second endagered speices in question was the Rice Rat, which lives in complex tunnel systems inside of and along the borders of swampy marsh land ecosystems (created by and supported by the lake which was fixing to be filled with toxic wastes). No ammount of flying low and slow is going to capture that on film. I think we can sufficiently show that the aircraft/aerial photography theory is a competely unreasonable alternative.

I can think of no other alternative than to physically travel to the site in order to document the necessary evidence needed to prove the corporate cover-up, but I am seriously still open to anything you can throw at us. Charges have not been pressed yet, but they do not know that we are aware of their second intent to make that happen and we'd like to be prepared as best we can if it does in fact come to fruition this time.

You are trying to convince the wrong jury. If charged, a lawyer can defend your position based on morality.

Quote:

---

JohnnyLaw;571880]Aircraft Rental: : $150/hr for the plane +$40/hr for a pilot. Helicopters and hot air balloons are not available at the local General Aviation Fixed Base Operator (FBO). Then tack on a good high-resolution camera for another couple hundred dollars. Possible? Yes. Reasonable? No. Secondly, look back at the case narrative:

---

so what of the cost. Yes, it is reasonable if you wish to avoid breaking the law and being subject to prosecution for trespassing and gain your information and it's not my fault you cannot afford the fees for the aerial observation.

if you don't like those prices, rent or buy an ultra-light. That takes care of what you feel is prohibitive cost and the altitude problem.

btw; a good balloonist can brush the tops of the trees.

Quote:

---

But as you can guess by the trees name, the appearance of the bark is a readily identifiable trait and was the only suitable proof obtainable at the time to conclusively show beyond a reasonable doubt that there were in fact Shagbark Hickory trees left standing on the premesis. No top-down photograph could have possibly captured what was needed.

---

really? Seems like since the bark is how you identify the trees and especially since the leaves would not block the trunk, it would be a piece of cake.

Quote:

---

This likewise invalidates any possibility of using commercial satellite imagery, which often does not provide imagery at greater resolutions than 1 meter per pixel.

---

depending where this is located, that would not necessarily be correct. Terraserver has resolution down to .075 meters/pixel. As well, there is often commercially available aerial imagery that is quite capable of determining the species of tree.

Quote:

---

I think we can sufficiently show that the aircraft/aerial photography theory is a competely unreasonable alternative.

---

I completely disagree.



and remember, he wasn't trying to prove the bats remained but that shagbark Hickory trees remained. If you want to make justifications (excuses) for not utilizing a legal means, that's on you but regardless of whether you believe there is a legal means to gather the information, not having a legal means to gather the information still does not allow him to break the law to gain his information.

Quote:

---

Looking beyond the tree issue, the second endagered speices in question was the Rice Rat, which lives in complex tunnel systems inside of and along the borders of swampy marsh land ecosystems (created by and supported by the lake which was fixing to be filled with toxic wastes). No ammount of flying low and slow is going to capture that on film.

---

but the other evidence would be adequate to allow a warrant to be issued so the government powers could investigate.

Quote:

---

I can think of no other alternative than to physically travel to the site in order to document the necessary evidence needed to prove the corporate cover-up, but I am seriously still open to anything you can throw at us.

---

it appears you will make whatever excuse you need to justify the trespass. Sorry but there is nothing that would remove the illegality of the trespass. You might as well trespass and deal with the problems it brings.

Quote:

---

it appears you will make whatever excuse you need to justify the trespass.

---

Well, that IS the object of the defense. It worked for Casey Anthony, didn't it? :p

Quote:

---

Sorry but there is nothing that would remove the illegality of the trespass.

---

That's what I was 99% sure of when I started this thread, but I thought there just might be some kind of exclusion for situations like this (a long shot, I know). You've answered my question though, and the most he's looking at is a fine probably. Thanks for the help.