Can You be Charged With Trespassing for Jumping a Fence That Was Unlawfully Installed

Maybe I posted in the wrong forum... can somebody move this thread to the civil rights section?

I wanted to talk about the elements of public vs private property trespassing, and what is required to have probable cause. I didn't think I had to wait to hash out details in the actual 42 USC court. Please pardon my curiosity.

Quote:

---

Quoting zoinbergs

---

Maybe I posted in the wrong forum... can somebody move this thread to the civil rights section?

---

You have no "civil rights" defense that would allow you to trespass on private property.

Quote:

---

Quoting zoinbergs

---

I wanted to talk about the elements of public vs private property trespassing

---

An easement on private property does not transform the property into "public property". You have no right to trespass on the land of another merely because a utility company holds an easement over the portion of the land upon which you trespass.

The police saw you hop a fence on private property, and saw you fail to respond to their instructions to come out of that fenced area. Why do you imagine that they would need anything more before arresting you?

Quote:

---

Quoting joef

---

Can you provide an address for the location in the photo.

---

Judging from the police report, it was here. Nobody could reasonably confuse that with a public space. The officer took a photograph of the defendant inside the fenced area, so that photo would clearly establish where he was.

If the gate is locked and you don’t have a key, you aren’t in the invited list.

Oh man, don't tell me my sting is still working and going strong! Are you guys for real? Do you regularly eat the crap your police serve you? You don't think it's possible that they could be mistaken / lie / fudge the results of their arrest affidavits and police reports in order to not look bad / catch a "nigger" that they don't actually have the real evidence to arrest, but still want to "get off the streets" regardless? Your blind faith in the system concerns me.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You have no "civil rights" defense that would allow you to trespass on private property.

---

Wow, quite the.. don't make me say it.. assumption? Tell me, how did YOU come to the determination that I trespassed onto PRIVATE PROPERTY? Please enlighten me. What EVIDENCE do you have that that area is P-R-I-V-A-T-E P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

An easement on private property does not transform the property into "public property". You have no right to trespass on the land of another merely because a utility company holds an easement over the portion of the land upon which you trespass.

---

What exactly do you mean by "easement"? I've seen people use this word before. Can you point me to, say, a definition in the Fort Collins Municipal Code (or any other book for that matter) to substantiate precisely what you are talking about? We gotta start with the correct words, and the correct definitions of words, if we're going to get anywhere. Again, how do you know that's private property? How do you know it's not public property? You used a map? A plat? Anything? Where'd you get this information regarding the utility company? HAVE YOU READ NONE OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS? Sounds like you jumped on the same lynch mob gravy train as the police / internal affairs / the judge who rubber stamped the affidavit / the DA / practically everybody else who doesn't seem to care about getting their facts / details / backstory straight before hanging me in the tree.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The police saw you hop a fence on private property, and saw you fail to respond to their instructions to come out of that fenced area. Why do you imagine that they would need anything more before arresting you?

---

Oh, I don't know, I imagine they would need some sort of *actual evidence* that the area is *actually private property,* and that the nearby business is *actually* the one who put up the fence, and that they *actually* did not want anybody in there, and had indicated that to the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Nobody could reasonably confuse that with a public space. The officer took a photograph of the defendant inside the fenced area, so that photo would clearly establish where he was.

---

Hah! Really? That's not public land on the east side of safeway? You sure about that? What did you use to determine that? That the area is not a paved street or a concrete sidewalk? Tell me, are police NOT required to know the most *basic* definitions in their municipal code, namely in this case, the definition of RIGHT OF WAY?

Fort Collins Municipal Code Sec. 17-42. - Posting notices and handbills on premises.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this Subsection (a):

Commercial or business sign shall mean any sign, flier, notice or poster intended to
advertise, direct or attract the attention of the public to a business, or intended to induce
the purchase of goods, services, property or entertainment, or to promote business or
employment opportunities.

Noncommercial sign shall mean any sign, flier, notice or poster which is not intended to
advertise, direct or attract the attention of the public to a business, or intended to induce
the purchase of goods, services, property or entertainment, or to promote business or
employment opportunities, including, but not limited to, signs conveying a political,
ideological or personal message.

Public property shall mean any portion of real property, pole, post, tree, barricade, bridge,
fence, railing, utility box, curb, sidewalk, wall, bench, building or structure of any kind
which is either publicly owned or located in the public right-of-way.

Public right-of-way shall mean the entire area between property boundaries which is
owned by a government, dedicated to public use, or impressed with an easement for
public use, which is primarily used for pedestrian or vehicular travel, and which is publicly
maintained, in whole or in part, and includes, but is not limited to the street, gutter, curb,
shoulder, sidewalk, sidewalk area, parking or parking strip, median and any public way.

Hmmm, because it sounds to me, that if one knew what the definition of *basic* right of way was, they wouldn't be able to safely say (with any sort of confidence) something along the lines of (I could only imagine going through their head later in a 42 USC court) that "because it's not a street or a sidewalk, I thought it was private property!" Kinda looks like what Officer Brede was trying to get away with (ie, not knowing the definition of his city's right of way, but still trying to get away with writing up his police report regardless) when he said:

"When I arrived at 430 Remington Street, I saw that William was standing behind a fenced area on the east side of Safeway I saw that there was a fence erected around the benches on the east side of Safeway, right next to where the sidewalk is. The chain-link fence was not blocking the sidewalk."

HOGWASH. Thanks to you, it looks like my sting has officially reached THE INTERNET! But let's be serious and continue this conversation. The police had what I believe to be mere hunches and nothing more, that:

1) the area was private property, and

2) the private property owner did not want anybody to be in it

3) the private property owner was the one who had erected the fence on this private property of theirs to establish that they did not want anybody in it

Versus what I provided to them via the ACTUAL takedown notice, which I believe to be *pretty substantial evidence* of ACTUAL facts, now within their full knowledge and control to weigh against or for, that:

1) the area in question was public property

2) the area in question, according to the subject, was the "Safeway Downtown Fort Collins"

3) the nearby business owner had an upcoming minor amendment (that they themselves did not deny they needed to apply for, but had not yet) in order to modify the area with in the first place (fences and permits and violations of city code if no permit exists aside entirely)

4) the nearby business owner erected the fence

5) the fence they erected did not have a permit

6) the nearby business owner fully admitted that they erected the fence without a permit as a "temporary safety precaution" to which they would be removing once they submitted the minor amendment

7) the city knew this fence did not have a permit

8) the chief construction inspector was the one who sent the takedown notice, and he left a signature and an accurate phone number in the notice (that one could easily look up online) to substantiate who he was

9) the city was informing them that the fence did not have a permit, and that they knew it was them who had erected said fence

10) the city had the apparent authority to send the takedown notice themselves

11) the date the takedown notice was sent was very recently (the prior morning) thus eluding to the grace period of the city giving them 10 days to remove the fence, thus eluding to the idea that the fence could still be up within that time frame, but not be legally up, thus eluding to the idea that the area did not need its permission restricted in the mean time (because according to the code it's a misdemeanor regardless for every day the fence is up without a permit)

10) the city was requiring them to remove the fence because it did not have a permit

11) the fence was placed, according to the city, "within public right of way"

12) the fence was considered, according to the city, an "encroachment"

13) the fence required a maximum of 10 days to remove, but that it needed to be removed "sooner rather than later" (gee I wonder why)

14) there existed a "city code" to which the fence without its permit violated, to which the police could at that point probably look up said code with basic search terms to now see what it said (not rocket science here)

So that's A LOT of facts that are FOR it being public property, and that NO permit existed to restrict its permission, compared to the police having NO facts substantiating it being private property. Also, why would somebody need a permit to erect a fence on their own private property in the first place? Why is there such a takedown notice talking about permits? What is this nonsense!

Am I missing something here guys? Wouldn't all of these alleged facts sway the probable cause in the direction of the area being considered, at the very least, more likely to be public property than private property, let alone to which the issue of permits would now need to be invoked?

The way I'd put it, is that the police, at the very least, are not allowed to have probable cause for private property, and then all of a sudden change teams (more like ballparks) halfway through their case, so as to take me to trial on public property entirely after the fact. Dealing with probabilities in the streets, it sounds like, at least to me, that the probability of the property being private was much lower, especially after reading the takedown notice, than it would be public property. Also, do the police not have patrol vehicle maps RIGHT BEHIND THEM to refer to? I've asked, and they say they have patrol vehicle maps for things like park and natural area boundaries, etc.

I would imagine that the police would have to either have probable cause for private property trespassing, which requires a finding of probable cause for each element on a private property level, or probable cause for public property, which requires a finding of probable cause for each element on a public property level. As in, I believe the police were two steps removed from where they needed to be (step one being they needed to establish public property permission via a permit for the fence, and step two being that they didn't even get that far because they went down the private property paradigm in the first place instead). That just sounds like *too many assumptions* they thought they could make and get away with, without having a shred of evidence on any of them, any elements established with any facts whatsoever, on either the public OR private side. Sounds like a bunch of hunches to me.

Are we supposed to just indulge the business owner in his stealing of land in the mean time, for 10 plus days, and not let anybody hang out inside said area for that entire time, even though we know (for arguments sake, if the cops knew their jobs) that the area doesn't have a permit? Shouldn't the police be wanting to uphold the public's right to use the area in the mean time, since the requirement to restrict permission to use the area requires, um, a valid permit?

It's like a crime / call, a form of trespassing by putting up the fence without a permit, was already taking place at the time for that particular area, that the cops should have already been taking first in my opinion, and that there was not, or should not have been, room to take the opposite trespassing call (me) for the same area. Kinda like what I previously mentioned, Kuehl v. Burtis (https://casetext.com/case/kuehl-v-burtis) where the cops lacked arguable probable cause because they "took the wrong call" and inadvertently / maliciously framed the victim with the assault, when it was the perpetrator who had actually committed the assault (but was considered the victim at the time).

Sorry for being so wordy, but I just don't think the cops get to have a free ride just because "they saw a guy behind a fence" and well, that's that! I know the bar for probable cause is low, but I know it's not at the freaking floor!

To all of that;

enjoy jail, probation, and or the fines the court imposes upon a finding of guilt.

Google maps street view shows that location without the fence but clearly visible above the area is a "No Loitering Police Enforced" sign. This may well be public land with an attraction that was too attractive to criminal/disruptive elements and the location was posted to allow police to disperse any groups congregating there. I bet that this proved insufficient and they decided to fence it off. It likely is not private property but public property that the city leaders decided was being abused and thus restricted access to it.

So did you have a key to the gate or not? If not you weren’t invited to play in the playground and you were trespassing. Access to public property can be restricted.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

To all of that;

enjoy jail, probation, and or the fines the court imposes upon a finding of guilt.

---

Wow, I'm actually running out of words to describe the level of apparent intellectual dishonesty I am actually witnessing here! Do you guys seriously not READ BEFORE YOU POST? Do you *want* me to be hung in a tree? I ALREADY INFORMED YOU, IN MY VERY FIRST POST, THAT THE TRESPASSING CHARGE GOT DROPPED. And later, I informed you that the other charges will get dropped as well, considering I was charged with them before even being seized under the meaning of the fourth amendment.

I don't want to say this, but I jumped the fence as a "sting" to see how many people would try to lynch me over it. I regret to admit, but according to what has just transpired in this forum, you (jk) are not doing a very good job at differentiating yourself from the very "nigger lyncher" group I am trying to expose. Today is sad day indeed. You evidently cannot handle the idea that corrupt cops exist in your world, and would rather jump on their bandwagon than turn them in for their hanus acts.

Quote:

---

Quoting joef

---

Google maps street view shows that location without the fence but clearly visible above the area is a "No Loitering Police Enforced" sign. This may well be public land with an attraction that was too attractive to criminal/disruptive elements and the location was posted to allow police to disperse any groups congregating there. I bet that this proved insufficient and they decided to fence it off. It likely is not private property but public property that the city leaders decided was being abused and thus restricted access to it.

---

Bingo. You are the first person I have come across on this subject that evidently has the mental capacity to handle such a thought. You are completely correct on all levels. In fact, here's the entire email chain between the city council and the police on the very subject. I wish you weren't right, but at least the truth is coming out.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ipto21...tion_Fence.pdf

What's saddens me, however, is that I have been fighting for the removal of that sign for years now, unsuccessfully. Nobody wants to hold ANYBODY to ANY fire that an ACTUAL homeless hate crime has been committed in their town by a rich loser that doesn't deserve the respect he gets from people.

Since then, my brother and I have only caught even *more* homeless hate crimes, all across the state now, to which I won't get into here, so as to stay on topic.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

So did you have a key to the gate or not? If not you weren’t invited to play in the playground and you were trespassing. Access to public property can be restricted.

---

Don't you get it? What do people use to restrict access to public property? A PERMIT. Not a fence, a permit. How does one satisfy the element of "unlawful" for second degree criminal trespassing? They refer to A PERMIT. Not the mere existence of a fence, BUT A GOSH DARN FREAKING PERMIT. Right?

Again, with your logic, are we just supposed to indulge anybody who puts up a fence illegally and steals actual land from us? Or perhaps are our police supposed to know better than to uphold said stolen land, and instead, know their jurisdiction, know their municipal code, and should instead be fighting for our very right to use said land against said thief.

Just because a fence goes up, do we all of a sudden need to bow down to the fence gods and remove EVERYBODY behind it, automatically, without question? Or are the police tasked with upholding all of governing law, and should be using maps, plats, definitions, and their code book TO WHICH WE WROTE AND GAVE THEM TO USE?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

So did you have a key to the gate or not? If not you weren’t invited to play in the playground and you were trespassing. Access to public property can be restricted.

---

So.... this comment got me finally thinking about the brass tacks. Thank you for triggering my thoughts! I humbly ask now, why are you jumping one step ahead and already talking about ME and MY invitation or not to "play in the playground" or not, when perhaps you should probably be concerned that somebody had already committed a form of a trespassing violation for the area. THIS WAS THE VERY PURPOSE OF MY STING. I hate to say this, but look at you guys. Does nobody want to admit that somebody already "trespassed" on this land? By putting up a fence illegally? Are you guys seriously, and I'm being dead honest, not capable of emotionally handling that somebody committed an actual hate crime in our society?

I'd like to consider the idea that I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO RECOGNIZED THE ORIGINAL 23-84 VIOLATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE ONLY ONE WHO CARED ENOUGH TO REPORT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, as my "key" to reclaiming MY RIGHT to use MY LAND once again. Thank you very much.

I apologize. I'd like to stick to the facts. But these comments are now verging on downright frightening to me.

And it wasn't even "my land" that I was reclaiming, it was everybody's land that I was reclaiming. You're welcome.

You really like listening to yourself, don’t you?

If all of your charges will be dropped, what’s the point in all of this.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You really like listening to yourself, don’t you?

If all of your charges will be dropped, what’s the point in all of this.

---

Good question. What is the point of all of this? Because until I can make it to a 42 USC court, which I am having difficulty getting to because I have been systematically defamed and discriminated against and denied the help I need to do so with by almost everybody in my life (my family especially) I have no choice but to see if I can hash out the details in the mean time with whomever I can get to. I've briefly spoken with attorneys on this issue, and they don't know what to do without the full information that I have yet to be able to get them. I have at least reported in the mean time what I believe to be said lack of probable cause, as well as crimes like submitting false documents for recording, and attempting to influence (reference the frauded warrantless arrest affidavit failing to mention the email, for example) to internal affairs, but to no avail, as they have also systematically not believed me and even called a "lawsuit scammer" over. And so really, if you want to know the truth, I'm finally getting caught up on the information, and have started to organize it, and release it, and well, I'm trying to get it out there now so that I can possibly get some help now with either a) representation by an attorney who can handle this type of case, or b) if I continue to be "complaint buzzed" and not believed, and not touched, at least show my good faith to people such that perhaps I can get some sort of different type of help now so as to enable me to get to the 42 USC courts myself. Also, I feel like this type of case needs to be discussed in a public forum, as a form of a whistleblow now, because I have been otherwise "silenced" over this issue (as well as literally dozens of others now that I have to deal with) and I am having difficulty getting the help I feel I deserve, to have my rights remain in tact, and well, I also wanted to show people a side of life that they otherwise don't have access to because of the information gap that has grown in this country between those who have help to offer, and those who need that help.

I apologize if this whole thing seems like a one way conversation. I do appear to not have many questions on the subject. I guess I was looking for some sort of confirmation from people, attorneys especially, who know or should know what they're talking about, that I indeed have a case. So far, nobody has given me a smoking gun in the opposite direction, that I absolutely don't have a case. So I guess I'm doing a pretty good job of knowing what I'm talking about? I haven't had much time in the past to start talking on a serous level with other people about this case, and others, and so I just thought I would start somewhere, that's all. And of course, I wanted to "sting" the public in a way, to see how quick people are to judge me, which has been happening a lot offline, and well, sure enough, I guess I was right in that it will happen online too! People don't seem to care anymore about the facts, and are so quick to judge. And so maybe I just wanted to prove that to myself by reaching out one last time in a more official way, before I head on over to 42 USC court to deal with it all myself.