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

A 42 USC Court?

if you want to file suit in a federal court you do just that. Stop all the useless, meaningless, and frankly, incorrect talk here and file your suit.

no, you don’t have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about. You prattle on with what you think are true facts and ignore anybody that has tried to explain to you that you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

A 42 USC Court?

if you want to file suit in a federal court you do just that. Stop all the useless, meaningless, and frankly, incorrect talk here and file your suit.

---

Easier said than done. I had (have) previous legal paperwork that wasn't getting done, before all this. I don't think you understand how bad my legal problems are / how little help I've gotten from people / how minimal my capacity is to just waltz down to the courthouse and file. Plus, I don't want to go it alone if I don't have to. Do they offer public defenders for federal civil court?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

no, you don’t have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about. You prattle on with what you think are true facts and ignore anybody that has tried to explain to you that you are wrong.

---

Yeah, now you're just using really general language here whereby I have a hard time believing that YOU know what your are talking about.

Can you please summarize to me / point out exactly what words / language / posts you speak of where anybody has halfway successfully, with an ounce of coherentness, explained to me that I am wrong, without just reiterating what the cops wrote in their police report? What specifically am I wrong about? Because if all you got is that "you jumped a locked fence into private property that you had no right to occupy" - I respectfully challenge that as pure hogwash, and nothing but conclusory in nature, precisely what the cops are trying to get away with in their botched police report. Do you have nothing else to offer? Are you telling me that the cops otherwise had probable cause that night? I'm honestly wanting you to spell it out for me. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Seriously, what evidence / facts / etc / more than just conclusory hunches / actual knowledge that reflects accurate municipal code definitions do the police have that the area in question is indeed, private property?

What standards are you holding them to? Are you saying they are allowed to be mistaken on 100% of their "facts" in the face of 100% contradicting information provided to them against those "facts"? Where do you draw that bar of probable cause? Because it all sounds to me like you are drawing it at the floor. Can you maybe describe for arguments sake a situation where the cops wouldn't have probable cause for trespassing, or are you saying that that is impossible, and that they can never be wrong, ever, when they draw up an arrest affidavit?

Please, give something to work with!

Good lord, is this idiot still here? Does he realize that he's not making any sense?

Quote:

---

Quoting zoinbergs

---

Please, give something to work with!

---

So this is about you being a crusader to free up public property for any use the public thinks they have a right to.

Without getting into your contorted thought process, you miss that even public property is subject to control by legislation of a township, municipality, or city by passing an ordinance.

The Park is Closed From Sunset to Sunrise. If you are caught in the park when it is closed, it is a trespass.

Is that simple enough for you to get your head around?

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

So this is about you being a crusader to free up public property for any use the public thinks they have a right to.

---

Well, that's the very question I pose -- when somebody erects a fence around public land WITHOUT A PERMIT, whose right is it to use (or in this case, restrict use to) that land? Does the person who erected the fence without a permit have the [continued] right to use / restrict its use, or does the public have the [inherently restored] right to use / reclaim use of that land? Are you saying that the public doesn't have the right to use that land in the mean time just because the fence is up, even though it doesn't have a permit? Are police obligated to check that the area has a permit to restrict its use, or are they allowed to simply, automatically, uphold the restricted non-use of the area by way of the simple existence of the fence in the first place around it, and nothing more? Because if that's the case, what protections do the public have against people who steal public land by erecting fences around it without permits? Because if the public has to wait until the fence comes down, even though the area doesn't have a permit for it, what good is a permit? If that's the case, it looks like the police are then allowed to [temporarily] uphold stolen land, *just because a fence is up around it*? I thought a 23-84 violation was a simple, generic violation of the municipal code...

Sec. 23-86. - Penalty.

The failure of any permittee to comply with the terms of such permit or to vacate the
permitted premises upon revocation of the permit, whether for cause or without cause,
shall be deemed to constitute a violation of the Code and shall be punishable in
accordance with § 1-15.

...that the police should have caught [first] and reported and/or charged the person who did it themselves [in the first place]. If they did their jobs correctly, I don't think they would have ever needed to worry about enforcing some other, opposite trespassing charge against me for, later. I think they would / should have been able to [correctly] uphold my [reclaimed] right to use that land. Whose to say they have to stick up for the person who stole the land, just because they may not consider it their job or something to that effect to check permits? Isn't the existence of the permit or not, say, tied to the element of "unlawful" to which the police should be investigating into before arresting somebody for trespassing? How do they *know* people behind the fence are *unlawfully* there, without a shred of evidence that there is a valid permit in existence for it in order to substantiate the restricted non-use of it? Are the police allowed to simply *assume* the area is restricted, "just because a fence is up around it"? I highly doubt that, I really do.

Also see Sec. 23-84. - Notice to remove encroachment.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to continue any encroachment, obstruction or
other structure for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of the notice provided for in
this Section.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

Without getting into your contorted thought process, you miss that even public property is subject to control by legislation of a township, municipality, or city by passing an ordinance.

---

Yeah, sure, of course public property is subject to control, WITH A VALID PERMIT TO SUBSTANTIATE AND RESTRICT ITS CONTROL!!! No permit = no control. The idea of "trespassing" goes both ways, does it not? Somebody who puts up a fence illegally around public land without a permit is already "trespassing" on that land, are they not?

I have spoken in great length with the Chief Construction Inspector who sent the takedown notice. I asked him one day what type of area the area in question is, since it didn't have a permit. He literally said to me, "it's just regular old right of way." Yeah, regular old right of way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

A 42 USC Court?

if you want to file suit in a federal court you do just that. Stop all the useless, meaningless, and frankly, incorrect talk here and file your suit.

no, you don’t have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about. You prattle on with what you think are true facts and ignore anybody that has tried to explain to you that you are wrong.

---

So I went ahead and harvested all the relevant previous posts that you claim I am "ignoring that they have tried to explain to me that I am wrong."

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

You're deluded. Regardless of whether the fence was properly placed you jumping over it onto property which you had no legal right to be on is criminal trespassing.
They don't need to consider "exculpatory" evidence on the arrest, just whether whatever indication present is probable cause that you committed the crime. Cases are not tried at the point of arrest.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Highwayman

---

The police are not obligated to check real estate records before arresting you. That's for you to deal with in court.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

sounds like guilty to me

---

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

If you're such a legal expert, why did you come here? Your case is not adjudicated in the forum and you seem unwilling to listen to anything. Good luck in court.

Again, the standards of probable cause for the arrest are much less than for winning at trial. You're not going to win this by attacking the probable cause.
I'm dubious about your arguments at trial, either, but you didn't ask that question. I was only answering the probable cause strategy.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

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

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?

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.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

To all of that;

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

---

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.

---

Looks like a bunch of conclusory and/or incoherent, ill-defined statements that don't actually provide any meaningful, articulate points to argue for or against.

What's "an easement"? What are "real estate records"? Where do the elements of trespassing talk about "a utility company?" How does everybody know with any certainty beyond a mere hunch that the area in question is indeed "private property?" What relevance does a "locked gate" or a key" have to do with the element, of, I can only presume, "unlawful"?

Come on jk. Give me something tangible to work with! Or do you have nothing actually constructive to provide other than the simple conclusory, evidently non-challengeable statement that, "the cops had probable cause, okay!"

You do talk about "invited" and "restricted access." To which I respond by talking about A PERMIT NEEDED to revoke that permission and restrict that access.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Good lord, is this idiot still here? Does he realize that he's not making any sense?

---

Nice, real constructive. Let's reduce our arguments down to feces throwing and defamation. You got anything more than that to offer?

The public in general has no right to public lands without restriction. You can’t go in to parks when they are closed.

But hey, you want to test your theory?

Go to the local police station. Bring your blanket and pillow and tell the cop since it is public property you have all rights to use it as you desire.

I suspect they might arrange for a place for you to stay.

as to the cops having probable cause; you were seen in an area they understood to be off limits to the general public. That is probable cause to arrest you.

Wow, round and round in circles we go! Can, the, word, PERMIT, come, out, of, your, mouth? Or is that too difficult for you to actually say?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The public in general has no right to public lands without restriction. You can’t go in to parks when they are closed.

---

Ooh, did you just say "in general"? And how do the police go about determining, in general, that the public land in question is actually restricted? Maybe, I dunno, by way of seeing A VALID PERMIT? We're not talking about parks here, we're talking about right of way - land that is, usually, generally, inherently open to the public, and otherwise only restricted UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID PERMIT TO RESTRICT SAID AREA. No permit = no restriction. If you want to take a position on this, just type the sentence out "cops don't need to check permits," so that we can get this over with, so that you can officially pick the side it looks like you want to be on (unless I'm mistaken here) so that we can maybe begin to test against that theory and actually have something legitimate to argue over. Because until then, it feels like you will only continue to tread on something along the lines of void for vagueness. Is it the cops' job to check permits, or not?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

But hey, you want to test your theory?

Go to the local police station. Bring your blanket and pillow and tell the cop since it is public property you have all rights to use it as you desire.

I suspect they might arrange for a place for you to stay.

---

Again, we need to compare apples to apples here buddy. I'm not talking about a police station. I'm talking about PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

as to the cops having probable cause; you were seen in an area they understood to be off limits to the general public. That is probable cause to arrest you.

---

Ooh, did you just say "they understood"? AND.... how did they come to this "understanding" you speak of, that the area is off limits? What evidence / tools / definitions / facts / references / signs / maps / visits with the business owner / visions from god / etc. did they use to establish said "understanding" -- beyond mere HUNCHES?

A guy, behind a fence, somewhere in the space time continuum of the universe. That's it? I fail to see how that's good enough to work with. Are you saying that the police can literally ASSUME every single other element of trespassing, with what appears to be mere hunches, and nothing more (again, correct me if I'm wrong here, spell it out for me, what did they use besides hunches)?

In my opinion, only circular logic comes to mind when trying on the cops' alleged probable cause.

COPS: "The business owner wanted to restrict access to their land by putting up a fence on their property."

ME: "How do you know the fence is theirs?"

COPS: "Because they wanted to restrict access to their land!"

ME: "How do you know the land in question is theirs?"

COPS: "Because they put up a fence to restrict access!"

ME: "How do you know it was them who wanted to restrict access?"

COPS: "Because they put up a fence on their land!"

The fence, the land, and the restriction of access. Hmmmm. Looks like all three elements were ASSUMED.

Your adherence to the need of some permit is unfounded and boring.

As to a public row; a public row isn’t even on property owned by the state but merely an easement for The benefit for the general public. (not necessarily by the general public. There can are typically are restrictions of how a public row can be used.

For example; many roads are public row’s on private property. Does that mean you can do anything on the road anytime you wish to? Obviously not. IF the area you are dealing with is a public right it way, that does not mean the general pubic has access to and rights to use it as they choose.

You seem to be confusing a public right away for the purposes of travel or recreation and a public right of way for use by the government or their assigns for the benefit of the people.

As for elements being assumed; your point? In some cases it’s perfectly fine to assume elements. Here’s one for ya;

a person can allow another person to beat them with a bat. As such there is no crime perpetrated by the person with the bat.

Now if the cops cops come along and see you with a bat in your hand and an unconscious guy lying on the ground they can rightfully assume you did it. The can also assume the guy on the ground didn’t give permission since most people wouldn’t allow such. The cops can arrest you based on the sssumed facts. If the guy wakes up and says; I told him to hit me, then you walk free. If he doesn’t, then you go to trial.

in your case it can be assumed that if you didn’t have the key to the lock on the gate the owner has not granted you permission to be inside the fence. As such, the cops can arrest you on suspicion of trespassing.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

As to a public row; a public row isn’t even on property owned by the state but merely an easement for The benefit for the general public. (not necessarily by the general public. There can are typically are restrictions of how a public row can be used.

For example; many roads are public row’s on private property. Does that mean you can do anything on the road anytime you wish to? Obviously not. IF the area you are dealing with is a public right it way, that does not mean the general pubic has access to and rights to use it as they choose.

---

I think you may have assumed I was using a certain set of definitions. I am NOT talking about "rights of way" when dealing with easements / utility companies / property that isn't owned by the state. I'm talking about GENERIC PUBLIC LAND THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE 100 FEET THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARCELS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTY LINES. Like, THE STREET. Anything between that 100 FEET is treated as pure public land, not an easement, not something that people have the "right" to use to get from one place to another, like an easement to access your house by having to walk through somebody else's yard. I'm talking about THE CITY STREETS THAT WERE LAID OUT 143 YEARS AGO VIA THE CITY PLATS. Real simple stuff. Like, parcels, blocks, good old fashioned PUBLIC LAND that the cops should be very well aware of by now. Their patrol maps, which reflect their GIS maps, reflect this 143 year old plat I speak of. BLOCKS OF PARCELS vs CITY STREETS. Nothing more.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/98xn8z..._Town_Plat.pdf

http://www.mediafire.com/file/bmmwai..._Site_Plan.pdf

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1s1jy4...laza%20PUD.png

http://www.mediafire.com/view/tkw7wx...laza%20PUD.png

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

IF the area you are dealing with is a public right it way, that does not mean the general pubic has access to and rights to use it as they choose.

---

I never said I had a right to use it as I choose. I said I have an inherent right to use it, as anybody does, until somebody legitimately *restricts* the use of it, by way of A VALID PERMIT. As far as I know, there is only ONE way to restrict the use of PURE PUBLIC STREET, and that is with A VALID PERMIT. No permit = a 23-84 violation. Are you saying that the cops don't need to know what a 23-84 violation is? (Because it's a misdemeanor in their municipal code, just like a natural area camping ticket 23-193(d)(19), that I can only imagine they have the power to issue citations over.) Are you saying that the police don't need to know what the GENERIC definition of a PUBLIC STREET is?

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

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You seem to be cconfusing a public right away for the purposes of travel or recreation and a public right of way for use by the government or their assigns for the benefit of the people.

---

See above. I think it is YOU who are confusing the two. The "public right of way" I am speaking of, is the generic public land, known commonly to most as THE 100 FOOT WIDE STREET, complete with its "gutter, curb,
shoulder, sidewalk, sidewalk area, parking or parking strip, median and any public way." The area I jumped into I believe would fall under "and any public way."

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

As for elements being assumed; your point? In some cases it’s perfectly fine to assume elements. Here’s one for ya;

a person can allow another person to best them with a bat. As such there is no crime perpetrated by the person with the bat.

Now if the cops cops come along and see you with a bat in your hand and an unconscious guy lying on the ground they can rightfully assume you did it. The can also assume the guy on the ground didn’t give permission since most people wouldn’t allow such. The cops can arrest you based on the sssumed facts. If the guy wakes up and says; I told him to hit me, then you walk free. If he doesn’t, then you go to trial.

in your case it can be assumed that if you didn’t have the key to the lock on the gate the owner has not granted you permission to be inside the fence. As such, the cops can arrest you on suspicion of trespassing.

---

You gotta compalre apples to apples here. Trespassing is very BLACK and WHITE type of charge, as far as I can tell, which requires CRITICAL elements to establish, that most of which may not be assumed. When talking about private property trespassing, one of the critical elements needed for arguable probable cause is that a person must be personally communicated the revocation of their permission, by the property owner, and that the person has to also willfully refuse to heed that revocation request. There is plenty of case law out there where the cops did not enjoy qualified immunity because they thought they could assume that that all important element of "unlawful." Here, in my situation, I am positing something similar, in that a critical element of "unlawful" for public property trespassing, is that one establishes the restriction of permission, via simply looking up to see if the location has a VALID PERMIT.

For arguments sake, let's say I jumped the fence during the day. Are you saying that the cops can arrest me willy nilly, without so much as a phone call to their city manager's office first, to check the status of the permit? Or are they allowed to check that status after I'm arrested? Sounds like a wasted trip to the jail if all it takes is a second or two to call the city zoning department up. I have a hard time believing that the cops can legally assume that the area is restricted *just* because a fence is up, and nothing more. What exigent circumstances exist that place such pressure on the cops to turn a "presumed innocent until proven guilty" scenario into what looks to be a purely opposite, "guilty until proven innocent" scenario? What if the city manager sent out regular memos to the police whenever permits went invalid? The knowledge of a permit I can only imagine PRECEDES the ability to arrest somebody on "suspicion" of trespassing. Without know what the status of the permit is, how can one say with any confidence that the person is *unlawfully* inside the area?

Again, you have yet to answer my master question. Are cops allowed to "uphold" stolen land that somebody took by way of erecting a fence without a permit? The cops don't work for the person who stole the fence. The cops work for the public, and in my opinion, should be upholding MY RIGHT to use that land, if somebody else has stolen it from us. Why entertain anything otherwise? Say the cops got a phone call from the city manager right before I jumped the fence, personally informing them that the area does not have a valid permit to restrict it's use. Are you saying the cops would still have the right to arrest anybody hanging out inside of it, or DO YOU THINK THE COPS CAN BE SMART ENOUGH TO LET PEOPLE HANG OUT INSIDE OF IT KNOWING IT DOESN'T HAVE A VALID PERMIT? I think they would be pretty hard pressed to arrest somebody knowing full well that the critical element of "unlawful" -- which would otherwise require them to present a valid permit at trial in order to substantiate -- was definitely not being met in the streets first.

My question involves criminal law for the state of: CO

To the NAZI loser who feels the need to close my previous thread on said subject, could you please describe why you felt you needed to silence such a conversation, other than an immature decision because you just didn't like how the conversation was going? Come on, BE PROFESSIONAL and stop silencing shit. What forum policy have I violated? Please elaborate.

The reason I have a problem with what you did, is because I was in the middle of getting to the bottom of what I believe the issue at hand is. Here is my final post regarding said subject, BECAUSE I THINK THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING, ESPECIALLY IN A FREAKING LEGAL FORUM. STOP SILENCING THE VERY TALK YOU OPENED UP YOUR FORUM FOR!!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

in your case it can be assumed that if you didn’t have the key to the lock on the gate the owner has not granted you permission to be inside the fence. As such, the cops can arrest you on suspicion of trespassing.

---

You seem to keep getting ahead of yourself. How do the cops know it's private property? How do they know some owner of said alleged private property has not granted said permission to be inside of it? Just the mere existence of the fence? How do the cops know the property owner who they think erected the fence, was in fact the person who erected said fence? You can't be assuming EVERY element of trespassing. You gotta have SOMETHING that resembles a fact or evidence to work with. A FENCE, alone, does not equal evidence of private property plus a private property owner's permission, because it could just as easily be evidence of a permission being revoked for public property. Another way to put it, considering I tested out a similar theory with great success, was where I got falsely arrested for not showing my receipt at a Walmart. The retarded cop who arrested me likely thought that not showing a receipt was evidence that I had not paid for my item, however obviously not showing a receipt, and nothing more is EQUALLY likely to be evidence that I simply don't want to show my receipt. At most, seeing an erected fence, and nothing more, just like witnessing somebody not show a receipt, and nothing more, requires FURTHER investigation to eliminate the possibility of innocence from that of guilt. And no, I don't think I should be held in the mean time if I don't show my receipt, for the cop and clerks to establish my innocence while going and looking me up on video footage / checking the registers, just like I don't think I should be held in the mean time, JUST TO CHECK THE STATUS OF THE PERMIT FOR THE FENCE. You may think, well, more people than not who don't show their receipt are more likely to be shoplifters. Sorry buddy, that's guilty until proven innocent, NAZI like mentality there. Just because a fence exists, you may also think that more likely than not the existence of that fence is legitimate. Nobody, or at least very few people, erect fences without a permit, right? However, the POSSIBILITY that the fence is illegitimately placed is still 50/50 compared to legitimately placed, without any further investigation on the part of the officers to differentiate between the two. They may have a hunch, which is great. So go follow up on that hunch! Don't assume the fence is up legally, just so I can sit in jail, just because you think some sort of "exigent" circumstance exists that you just "couldn't let your nigger go" and you had to arrest him before you could SIMPLY GO LOOK UP A FREAKING PERMIT FOR THE AREA. Sounds like a royal waste of tax payer dollars, and a pure infringement on my fourth amendment rights, in my opinion.