Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54
  1. #31

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post


    in your case usually is irrelevent. Either it is a ROW on private land or it’s state owned land. Your means of determining ownership or private v. Public land is useless. You have to study the plat maps and the description of relevant plots of land. Then lay out the plot (like in survey) to determine what area is included in that plot of land.
    Yep, already did that. It's public land. Already confirmed with the Chief Construction Inspector who sent the takedown notice, the day the takedown notice was sent, that he didn't even need to send out a surveyor to confirm such things before issuing said takedown notice. It was that obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a basic map, and a 143 year old plat, and a subdivision plat, and look at the blocks of parcels, and the consistent 100 foot width of the streets running alongside and around them, etc. etc. etc. to see that the area was MOST DEFINITELY, without any controversy whatsoever, good old public land. PS- The nearby property manager that put up the fence illegally wasn't even claiming that it was his land in the first place, as evidenced in the full email chain that he was participating in, between him and the city. He admitted that he had not gotten a minor amendment yet for the area in question, and was essentially asking for forgiveness in place of permission on the topic of the illegal fence going up in the mean time:

    Hate Crime Email Chain Between Eric Holsapple And The City Of Fort Collins

    And now here are those maps and plats you speak of (that I ALREADY offered a long time ago, in my FIRST post on the topic):

    Fort Collins Citydocs Original 143 Year Old Town Plat

    Fort Collins Original Town Plat (Zoomed Into Robinson Piersal Plaza PUD Area

    FCMaps City Map Of The Robinson Piersal Plaza PUD

    Larimer County Map Of The Robinson Piersal Plaza PUD

    Robinson Piersal Plaza PUD Subdivision Plat, Master Plan, Preliminary And Final Site Plan

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Your continued harping on needing a permit to preclude you from any land is ridiculous. The owner of the land has a right to preclude you from the land, no permit required.
    Yep, and the city owns the land, and retains the exclusive rights to said land, whereby they sent a takedown notice for a fence that illegally went up on said land, in order to reclaim control of said land, because somebody was trying to exercise their control over said land, without lawful justification in order to legally do so. And so the the city took back their land, from the one who took it, by sending a takedown notice, to the the party who took it, demanding that they give it back, or if not, that they (the city) will be taking the land back themselves, in 10 days, by taking the fence down themselves, and then billing the one who took it, for making them do such preposterous things.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    It’s a right inherent with ownership.
    Bingo. The public owns the land, and thus, retains the inherent right of ownership to said land. Without a valid permit in effect to legally restrict the use of said land, that inherent right is now restored. (Or should have been, by the cops that night, by not arresting me for being within said area.)

    I believe your continued harping on the land being some sort special land that needs some sort of special treatment in order to determine who it belongs to, and whose rights are involved, is what is ridiculous.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Nothing you showed proved anything. A gis map is not legally dependable for indicating location of lot lines. Especially given I see the lot lines running right through buildings (on the road side) one would think you realized that.

    The plat map is also useless in determining where the lot lines are

    so, have you at least gotten a tape measure out and measured from the indicated center of the existing road (roadways are nkt always centered in the area allotted). While that isn’t 100% accurate it’s more accurate than your guesses so far

    once you get that measurement and where it takes you (distance from the building) come on back and we’all chat some more

    But regardless; there is no false arrest. It may have been a mistake but given the facts at hand it wasn’t a false arrest.

  3. #33

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Nothing you showed proved anything. A gis map is not legally dependable for indicating location of lot lines. Especially given I see the lot lines running right through buildings (on the road side) one would think you realized that.

    The plat map is also useless in determining where the lot lines are
    Hello? Who said anything about proof? We're just dealing with probabilities here. As in, PROBABLE cause?

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    The plat map is also useless in determining where the lot lines are
    Umm, the city chief construction inspector (who sits above the cops in the city manager's office) who sent the very takedown notice, didn't even require a survey for the area in question. I only offered the maps for illustrative purposes only. Stop trying to create a controversy where there is none?

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    so, have you at least gotten a tape measure out and measured from the indicated center of the existing road (roadways are nkt always centered in the area allotted).

    once you get that measurement and where it takes you (distance from the building) come on back and we’all chat some more
    Even though I should be able to trust my city's chief construction inspector, the very one who sent the takedown notice, that he himself didn't even need to conduct a survey on the area, yes, I used a tape measure one day and counted to 100 feet. The width of the street was exactly 100 feet, from plot line to plot line.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    While that isn’t 100% accurate it’s more accurate than your guesses so far
    And definitely more accurate than the cops' guesses that night that the area was private property!

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    But regardless; there is no false arrest. It may have been a mistake but given the facts at hand it wasn’t a false arrest.
    Given the facts at hand? What facts? That's exactly my point. That's not a mistake. A mistake is having something to work with, and then being wrong about it. The cops weren't using ANYTHING at all that night, in order to either be "right" OR "wrong" about. IF they were to start with my email, and then look at their basic patrol maps, it would become very obvious to them (in the complete absence of their inarticulate hunches otherwise) that there was no issue whatsoever with EITHER the nearby business owner, NOR the chief construction inspector, that the area in question was in fact, public property. Given what I provided them, I believe a prudent officer would be stuck investigating down the path of public property, and would now have to refute that the area is NOT presumed to be public property, before arresting me with full on (conclusory) claims that it is private property. Without holding the cops to SOME SORT OF minimal fire, and I mean minimal, to conduct THE MOST BASIC of investigation, and I mean basic, are they not supposed to be taking care of a more likely 23-84 violation at that point, than arguing down some unproven, unsubstantiated inarticulate hunch pit that the area is somehow more private property than public property, claiming some empty excuse that it's "not their job to investigate plot lines?"

    Hello? The business owner's OWN WORDS were in the email, fully admitting that they had not applied for the minor amendment yet to modify the area with. Minor amendment = public property. Fence permit encroachment application not applied for yet = public property. Why would there be *any* sort of conversation even happening on two such obvious public-property-based concepts, if the area in question was pure private property? Sure, for arguments sake, without that email, maybe the cops could have an "easier time" excusing their behavior by saying something along the lines of "I didn't know it wasn't private property, I'm not responsible for checking plats. It looked like it was private property." But, that opens the door wide open to the question now, of how on earth did they even START off on such a definitive conclusion of the area being more private than public, anyhow? They're not allowed to just *pick* private property over public property, willy nilly. That's an inarticulate hunch if I've ever seen one. Next, if they were to fairly investigate my claims that it was public property, and then go check THEIR MOST BASIC PATROL MAPS to see if the area is indeed, at the very least, looks like it could be MORE LIKELY TO BE PUBLIC THAN PRIVATE, than why not just start investigating and charging down the paradigm of public property? Am I not allowed to trespass into public property, just as easily as private property? Next, if I just so happen to provide them with cold hard evidence that the area in question is indisputably public property, are then not then required to perform SOME SORT OF MINIMAL investigation into that allegation, considering what they otherwise have to work with is completely hot air, complete inarticulate hunches, that the area in question is private property? I can only imagine that the tables have now turned, and that they need to start working more with what *actual* information they now have in their possession to work with, instead of just continuing to pretend that they can continue to get away with (erroneously) believing that the area is somehow still more likely to be private property than public. In this particular case, do the public enjoy NO protections, whatsoever, against dirty cops doing whatever they want, laughing in the face of such obvious exculpatory information, and putting down whatever the heck they want in their police reports and arrest affidavits, without so much as a scintilla of evidence to substantiate their conclusory, hunch-based allegations? Just because land disputes (which there isn't even a dispute here, remember) sometimes involve plats, and surveys, doesn't mean that the cops have free reign to COMPLETELY IGNORE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE TO PEOPLES' FACES, IN TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THEIR COMPLETE INARTICULATE HUNCHES, AND NOT USE THEIR MOST BASIC TOOLS, like their STOCK patrol maps (which do offer parcel and boundary lines BTW, just like their city's GIS website offers, I've seen them), and umm, maybe a phone? in order to then call up their chief construction inspector with to see if the takedown notice that was JUST HANDED to them is indeed legitimate as it appears to be from viewing in the streets. The alternative, as you seem to argue, is that they are otherwise allowed to write down whatever the heck they want, without so much as a second thought whatsoever, without being held to any fire whatsoever for their actions, just because EVERY argument now needs to end up in court? Again, how did they come to the conclusion that the area is more private than public? What tools did they use? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEND LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE FENCE GOES UP DISPUTE TO COURT, without performing SOME SORT OF minimal investigation into refuting such OBVIOUSLY CONTRADICTING information to their PURE HUNCHES and nothing more. They had INARTICULATE HUNCHES that the area was private property, and INARTICULATE HUNCHES that permission was revoked by the private property owner. I had MORE THAN articulate alleged facts and information AND EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE SO that the area was already indisputably (between the city and the nearby property owner) public property, and that the permission was indisputably (between the city and the nearby property owner) not legally revoked.

    Kinda looks like the cops that night tried to get away with not knowing their jobs, and thought that they could just scribble down "private property" in hopes that people would not find the purely contradicting email that they were provided with (which by the way, was explicitly NOT mentioned anywhere in their warrantless arrest affidavit) in hopes that people would not see through all their bullshit, in hopes that people (like you?) would stick up for them and not hold them to ANY minimal fire whatsoever for not doing ANY investigation whatsoever. And, so far, it looks like it worked! Because it looks like you're still buying it!

    Going back to Kuehl v. Burtis (https://casetext.com/case/kuehl-v-burtis):

    In determining whether the district court should have granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we must consider whether Kuehl has alleged a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and whether a reasonable officer in Burtis's position would have known that his actions violated that right. Merritt v. Reed, 120 F.3d 124, 125-26 (8th Cir. 1997). 8The Fourth Amendment right of citizens not to be arrested without probable cause is indeed clearly established. See Habiger v. City of Fargo, 80 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 518 (1996). 1Nevertheless, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they arrest a suspect under the mistaken belief that they have probable cause to do so — provided that the mistake is objectively reasonable. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228-29 (1991). Stated otherwise, "The issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause." Habiger, 80 F.3d at 295 (citation omitted).

    4Probable cause exists when the totality of circumstances demonstrates that a prudent person would believe that the arrestee has committed or was committing a crime. United States v. Washington, 109 F.3d 459, 465 (8th Cir. 1997). 5We must give law enforcement officers "substantial latitude in interpreting and drawing inferences from factual circumstances," id., but such latitude is not without limits. 3First, because the totality of circumstances determines the existence of probable cause, evidence that tends to negate the possibility that a suspect has committed a crime is relevant to whether the officer has probable cause. 18An officer contemplating an arrest is not free to disregard plainly exculpatory evidence, even if substantial inculpatory evidence (standing by itself) suggests that probable cause exists. See Bigford v. Taylor, 834 F.2d 1213, 1218 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822 (1988), 488 U.S. 851 (1988). In this sense, the Fourth Amendment requires that we analyze the weight of all the evidence — not merely the sufficiency of the incriminating evidence — in determining whether Burtis had probable cause to arrest Kuehl for simple assault. 5For example, an officer may make an arrest if a credible eyewitness claims to have seen the suspect commit the crime, see United States v. Easter, 552 F.2d 230, 233-34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 844 (1977), but the officer may not arrest the suspect if, in addition, the officer is aware of DNA evidence and a videotaped account of the crime that conclusively establish the suspect's innocence. See, e.g., Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Co., 147 F.3d 1252, 1257 (10th Cir. 1998) (no probable cause to arrest plaintiff for shoplifting despite security guards' informing police that plaintiff stole merchandise, where officers viewed videotape rebutting guards' account and where plaintiff explained her actions to officers and produced receipts for the merchandise in question).

    9Second and relatedly, law enforcement officers have a duty to conduct a reasonably thorough investigation prior to arresting a suspect, at least in the absence of exigent circumstances and so long as "law enforcement would not [be] unduly hampered . . . if the agents . . . wait to obtain more facts before seeking to arrest." See United States v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Everroad, 704 F.2d 403, 407 (8th Cir. 1983); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 3.2(d), at 47-48 (3d ed. 1996). 7An officer need not conduct a "mini-trial" before making an arrest, Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 179 (1996); Morrison v. United States, 491 F.2d 344, 346 (8th Cir. 1974), but probable cause does not exist when a "minimal further investigation" would have exonerated the suspect. 1See Bigford, 834 F.2d at 1219; BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123, 128 (7th Cir. 1986) (a police officer "may not close her or his eyes to facts that would help clarify the circumstances of an arrest"); Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476-77 and n. 2 (10th Cir. 1995) (police need not interview alleged alibi witnesses but must "reasonably interview witnesses readily available at the scene, investigate basic evidence, or otherwise inquire if a crime has been committed at all before invoking the power of warrantless arrest and detention"); Sevigny v. Dicksey, 846 F.2d 953, 956-58 (4th Cir. 1988) (no probable cause where officer unreasonably failed to interview witnesses at scene of automobile accident who would have corroborated plaintiff's version of story); Baptiste, 147 F.3d at 1259 (officers may weigh the credibility of witnesses in making a probable cause determination, but they may not ignore available and undisputed facts). Cf. Brodnicki, 75 F.3d at 1264 (no duty to investigate suspect's proffered alibi prior to arrest); Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 263 (6th Cir. 1988) (suspect's plausible explanation of events held not to require officer "to forego arrest pending further investigation if the facts as initially discovered provide probable cause").

    And so, NO, I do not believe the "facts" (what facts?) as initially "discovered" (what discovery?) provided the officers that night with arguable probable cause.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    When you’re speaking of lot lines we aren’t speaking of probabilities. In fact that was what you were so upset about. Based on the situstion as seen did they or didn’t the police have probable cause to arrest you. From what yourve described they did. Whether a mistake was made or not doesn’t change that.


    Now you want to speak of probabilities: sorry dude but when the precise location of the lot line makes a difference between there being a crime or not, probabilities are not close enough. You continue to intentionally obfuscate the conversation by making such claims.

    The facts as seen that night;

    there was a fenced area. It appeared to be under the control of the building owner. You were within that fenced area without permission. That is adequate probable cause to arrest you. Were the cops mistaken about who held control over the area in question? You say yes but haven’t proven it but it doesn’t reslly matter as it does not remove the probable cause as seen by the police that day.


    In other words;

    a prudent person, the cop or actually anybody who saw the situation as you describe, would believe there was a crime being committed. That provides the probable cause necessary to make an arrest. No matter how many times you incorrectly claim they didn’t, you’re just wrong.

    And definitely more accurate than the cops' guesses that night that the area was private property!
    no, it isn’t but it’s irrelevent. The police do not have to perform a survey to prove their claim of probable cause. The facts as seen and assumed are adequate.

    Even though I should be able to trust my city's chief construction inspector, the very one who sent the takedown notice, that he himself didn't even need to conduct a survey on the area, yes, I used a tape measure one day and counted to 100 feet. The width of the street was exactly 100 feet, from plot line to plot line.

    ya mean there are lines on the ground? Regardless, your statement does not answer my question.

    Umm, the city chief construction inspector (who sits above the cops in the city manager's office) who sent the very takedown notice, didn't even require a survey for the area in question. I only offered the maps for illustrative purposes only. Stop trying to create a controversy where there is none?
    so you mean he reviewed the situation and concluded something and you accept it...

    just like the police did and you won’t accept that? Definitely a double standard.

    but the city chief construction engineers statement is meaningless in court. It does require a survey to prove where the city property ends and the private property starts.


    The more you talk the more you defeat your own case. You surely have destroyed any 1983 case you thought you had.


    So get out that 50 foot tape measure and start in the middle of the road and measure towards the building, post a picture of where you end up.

  5. #35

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Now you want to speak of probabilities: sorry dude but when the precise location of the lot line makes a difference between there being a crime or not, probabilities are not close enough. You continue to intentionally obfuscate the conversation by making such claims.
    Wow, did you read my previous post carefully? I said:

    Quote Quoting zoinbergs
    Am I not allowed to trespass into public property, just as easily as private property?
    No, the precise location of the lot line DOES NOT make a difference between there being a crime or not. Trespassing can exist on public land (behind a fence that has a valid permit). And trespassing can exist on private land (behind a fence that a business owner has put up whereby somebody refuses to leave after being told to).

    Oh yeah, this reminds me, don't forget that people can just as easily put up fences illegally on public land (the opposite form of that type of trespassing) AND private property owners can equally as easily falsify that they told somebody to leave their property when they in fact did not (the opposite form of that type of trespassing).

    So technically, it goes FOUR ways. The cops have FOUR different directions that they need to be investigating, whenever taking a trespassing call.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    The facts as seen that night;

    there was a fenced area.
    Wow, you got something right for once! Not disputed.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    It appeared to be under the control of the building owner.
    Woah there. Slow down. What do you mean by "it appeared" and "the building owner"? Where do you even BEGIN to substantiate such things beyond mere hunches? How did it not equally "appear" to be "under the control" of some random stranger putting up a fence in the public street? The fence said nothing about it being installed by a private property owner. The area, while not a paved street or a concrete sidewalk, was still well within the definition of what "the public right of way" or "the street" can include. (See Foco Muni Code 17-42).

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    You were within that fenced area without permission.
    Umm, without permission, huh? How so? Because I'm behind a fence? Quite conclusory your statement appears. Fences don't determine permission. Locks on gates don't determine permission. As far I know, permission determines permission. Either a private property owner has to be alleging some sort of revocation of some sort of permission, or a public property valid permit in existence has to be alleging some sort of revocation of some sort of permission.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    That is adequate probable cause to arrest you.
    Umm, so far it appears that only conclusory, inarticulate hunches have been used. Nice try though!

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Were the cops mistaken about who held control over the area in question? You say yes but haven’t proven it
    It's not my job to "prove" anything in the streets. I believe it is the cops' job to establish some sort of "cause" on each element of an offense, though. They cannot just *assume* 100% of 100% of the elements. So far, the cops have assumed EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of private property trespassing, especially "premises" and "permission." That's a lot of assuming, and not enough investigating. Again, I'm not asking them to look up plats and do surveys. But I would expect them to cross reference my provided takedown notice email with THEIR STOCK PATROL VEHICLE MAPS. There's a good 12 feet or so between the sidewalk and the building wall, that most definitely "appears" to not be within the property lines of the nearby private property. And again, how did they even START on the foot of private property? Wouldn't that require, umm, a map? Just because a fence goes up *next to* a building, that doesn't block the street or sidewalk, doesn't mean that anybody can safely start calling that area FULL ON private property. Why not put down public property in their police report? Seriously, please answer this question. What gives the cops the right to just *pick* private property over public property? Because private property business owners put up fences on their properties? Newsflash, people can just as easily, and just as likely put up fences around public property. The likelihood of either being true is still 50/50 -- which, without any further investigation, means that cops have done literally NOTHING to lift a finger yet on performing anything that resembles a real-life actual investigation. Do they have maps in their patrol vehicles? Yes. But are you saying that they don't have to OPEN those maps up, ever? WHY DID WE GIVE THEM TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? Let's go ahead and just take them back now. Cops don't need to use maps. At all. Ever. Once. Period.

    So again, in the instant case, the cops had no actual, articulate information to substantiate, beyond mere hunches, that some private property owner held control over the area in question. I had an actual, articulate, tangible, verifiable, you could charge me with forgery or attempting to influence if I happen to be wrong, disprovable, facts, information, EVIDENCE to substantiate, far beyond a mere hunch, that someone tried to unlawfully exercise control over the area in question, and that it was undisputed public property to which he tried to exercise said control over, and that he was indisputably unsuccessful in attempting to do so.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    but it doesn’t reslly matter as it does not remove the probable cause as seen by the police that day.
    As seen by the police that day, huh? What did they see? A guy, behind a fence, that was butting up to a building, that didn't block the street or sidewalk, that didn't indicate whatsoever who had installed it, nor did the area in question in general indicate, on its own merits, in any sort of meaningful or articulate way, that it was either public, OR private? Sounds like a great investigation starting point, but nothing more. Much like when you don't show a receipt at Walmart. But somebody who doesn't show a receipt, without more, could equally provide evidence of guilt just as easily as it could be of innocence. Hence why nobody (employees, nor cops) are instructed to start detaining anybody for *just* not showing their receipt.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    In other words;

    a prudent person, the cop or actually anybody who saw the situation as you describe, would believe there was a crime being committed. That provides the probable cause necessary to make an arrest. No matter how many times you incorrectly claim they didn’t, you’re just wrong.
    A prudent person, huh? What about the *other* crime potentially being committed, that nobody wants to talk about -- a 23-84 violation? That's a crime. It's in their municipal code. (Prudent) cops should have to be able to, and are likely required to, investigate all criminal offenses within their municipal code, is that not so? Does that not include a 23-84 violation? Could a 23-84 violation not just as likely and easily happen, as a guy putting up a fence on his own property? So where do the cops start with investigating a 23-84 violation, anyhow? I don't know, maybe start with, umm, A MAP? No need to talk about plot lines, or surveys yet. We're just talking about BEGINNING an investigation. They see a fence. They (are supposed to) know their definition of "the public right or way" or "the street." From there, the fence exists outside of the street and sidewalk, but could very well still be within the commonly known parts of "any public way" within the remaining definition of "the public right of way" or "the street." Where do the cops go next? I don't think a cop can just "let a crime go," just because he thinks the area in question could very well be private property that the fence went up within. See the tables turning? I imagine the cop would just as importantly have to start off somewhere in his investigation in the direction of public property, as he would have to for private property. But where does that leave him? Where does he start? How about A MAP, and maybe a phone call to his local zoning department.

    If a cop has the capacity, and dare I say, obligation to investigate a 23-84 violation, just as much as a private property trespassing violation, your "theory" that he be allowed to first and foremost, *automatically* start investigating and charging down the paradigm of private property, is moot. Some guy just committed a 23-84 violation right under their noses, and they just have *no way* whatsoever of protecting themselves from that happening? Dream on, jk, dream on.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    The police do not have to perform a survey to prove their claim of probable cause.
    Of course not, but they still have to be able to substantiate, and articulate, beyond mere hunches, and point to, some sort of, facts / inferences / experiences / evidence / information / etc. that they otherwise have a duty / responsibility / obligation to fully investigate, that are indeed, what a reasonable, prudent officer would use, and come to arguably the same conclusions with. So far, as it still appears, the cops still have NOTHING to work with -- except pure, hot, air.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    The facts as seen and assumed are adequate.
    Again, you keep talking about facts. What facts? You can't assume 100% of 100% of the elements. You gotta start somewhere. And while sure, circumstantial evidence can help substantiate probable cause for an element. 100% circular logic, with 100% circumstantial evidence, to assume 100% of the elements, while also flying in the face of ACTUAL evidence, is likely, almost certainly, not going to cut it.

    And so, as you say, the cops have every right to assume that a 23-84 violation is not being committed right in their very presence?

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    so you mean he reviewed the situation and concluded something and you accept it...

    just like the police did and you won’t accept that? Definitely a double standard.
    The police didn't refer to any sort of maps / plats / emails / talks with the alleged property owner / etc. The chief construction inspector had intercepted an undisputed email going on between the city and the perpetrator who had erected the fence, and had chimed into that email conversation. I used my previously learned definitions of "the public right of way" or "the street" and looked up if some sort of 23-84 violation could exist, which it can, and then I also looked up some basic maps and plats, and then talked to my city chief construction inspector about the violation, and got the takedown notice triggered. Sounds like something A COP could do if he really wanted. The situation was evidently so obvious and easy to understand / handle that it didn't even require a survey (remember, the nearby business owner wasn't even alleging that it was private property to which he was being told to take down his fence within). I'm sure if anybody *really* wanted to care so much, they could bitch about their not being a survey. (Oh man, we don't know FOR SURE FOR SURE FOR SURE if the area is public or private!) But it may very well be considered a pure waste of time, since nobody, not even the nearby business owner, (oh wait, except evidently the cops) were disputing that the land was public, and not private.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    but the city chief construction engineers statement is meaningless in court.
    I beg to differ. I imagine the email provided to the police that night -- which would then immediately allow them to very easily look up its details to see if the city's chief construction inspector is in fact Robert Mosbey (and that the nearby property manager is in fact, Eric Holsapple) -- that all could be easily looked up while I am still hanging out inside the fenced area before arresting me -- would be VERY relevant in establishing, or negating, arguable probable cause.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    It does require a survey to prove where the city property ends and the private property starts.
    Sure, but it does NOT require a survey to start going down a responsible, prudent investigation path, that the area is "more likely" public than private. Remember, they have MERE HUNCHES that the area is private. I have AN ACTUAL EMAIL obtained referencing BOTH parties (the city AND the actual nearby property owner that they still only have a hunch about). How does my email not trump their hunches?

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    The more you talk the more you defeat your own case. You surely have destroyed any 1983 case you thought you had.

    So get out that 50 foot tape measure and start in the middle of the road and measure towards the building, post a picture of where you end up.
    Take a closer look at the pictures I offered. The property line CLEARLY runs alongside, or adjacent to the building. It's a regular, rectangular block-based parcel. Then there's the street, and a sidewalk, and then some grass and trees in between that sidewalk and the building wall. Do you REALLY believe that it's just *totally and completely* impossible to tell, without a bloody survey, that they area in question is, at the very least, "more likely" to be public land than private land? "It's just such a close call! We better just call it private property and arrest him right away!" HOGWASH. Now add into the mix a very interesting and detailed email takedown notice that completely contradicts all your precious hunches on all the elements of private property. DOUBLE HOGWASH.

    Also, I think we are forgetting something. The cops have been taking calls at this location FOR YEARS. The property lines have never changed since the PUD was developed. I hardly doubt the cops have been considering it private property for the last 30 years (the PUD was developed in the 80's). The cops say the area is a "hotspot" which means that they get, and according to their research revealed in a city council email I found between them and the city, more calls to this location than almost ANY other location in the city. I hardly doubt that they have been so easily mistaken for the last 30 years. I hardly doubt that I am the *first one* to stir up such a controversy.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    In YOUR case, yes, the precise location of the property line does make a difference. You want to mix the specific incident with the Safeway building and general principles of law. Stick to one or the other. I presumed you wanted to discuss your situation but since it’s apparent you don’t, i’ll take my leave as I don’t wish to discuss general principles of law with you.

  7. #37

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    In YOUR case, yes, the precise location of the property line does make a difference.
    Makes a difference in what? Some trial of mine that I won't be having because the charge got dropped?? Or their 42 USC court? Because I thought the precise location of the property lines is beyond the scope of their jobs when determining probable cause. Who cares about the precise location of the property lines otherwise. The cops only have to deal with probabilities, and weighing information (or the complete lack there of, in their case) against other information (that was staring them in the face, in their case) that they obtain during their (prudent, or not in their case) investigations into such matters?

    I say, if you hold me to such a high bar in that I guess I just gotta go out and take a tape measure to the street to see if it's 100 feet wide (why do I need to be doing this again?) I can only imagine that the cops could easily be held to the same standard. They had access, just like me, to BASIC maps, and BASIC city plats, and BASIC definitions of the right of way (the street) -- everything that I, a pure layman, equally had access to, in order to EASILY sniff up the trail of a 23-84 violation... yet they get to go around claiming private property trespassing without any legal consequences whatsoever, while I take the *real* trespassing call (the 23-84 violation)?

    If it isn't painfully apparent, I suppose it'll never be. I have a hard time believing that the cops would ever have probable cause for trespassing on private property, when THE EXACT OPPOSITE CRIME was already taking place, and had even already been addressed, for the exact same area in question. That crime being a 23-84 violation. If the cops were doing their jobs, and knowing their laws, and performing their prudent investigations, I can only imagine that they would have already "taken" the public property trespassing call first (the 23-84 violation) and would have thus, never needed to worry about "taking" some inarticulate, hunch-only-based private property trespassing call (me).

    But instead, in your world, they evidently have the right to "frame" me with the [opposite] evidence of some other person's crime. Sure sounds fair to me! NOT. What a "ferreting" out of crime indeed. NOT.

    Kinda looks like Kuehl v. Burtis (https://casetext.com/case/kuehl-v-burtis) where the cops inadvertently and/or maliciously and/or for whatever reason or another "framed" the true victim with the [opposite] evidence of the perpetrator's crime. REAL professional cops. You took the wrong call! And now you took the wrong call again.

    I guess nobody wants to acknowledge, because they're evidently too busy trying to prosecute me, and/or stick up for the cops' alleged arguable probable cause to arrest me, for private property trespassing, that somebody in their city committed an actual 23-84 violation. I guess nobody wants to hold Eric Holsapple responsible for stealing public land, because they're too busy "getting" me.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Since you have all the answers, go ahead and play Don Quixote. Good luck.

  9. #39

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    Since you have all the answers, go ahead and play Don Quixote. Good luck.
    It's not so much that I'm claiming I have all the answers. It's that the cops that night, and everybody else that want to evidently start off on the foot of defending them (instead of otherwise being an impartial party to the subject) seem to believe that THEY have all the answers, when it is painfully apparent, at least to me, that they have nothing but hoopla / hot air / incohate hunches / etc. to work with in the first place.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    in your case usually is irrelevent. Either it is a ROW on private land or it’s state owned land. Your means of determining ownership or private v. Public land is useless. You have to study the plat maps and the description of relevant plots of land. Then lay out the plot (like in survey) to determine what area is included in that plot of land.

    Your continued harping on needing a permit to preclude you from any land is ridiculous. The owner of the land has a right to preclude you from the land, no permit required. It’s a right inherent with ownership.
    This type of comment is what concerns me the most. It seems as though jk, just like the cops that night, think that when an "issue" between public vs private is involved, that the general premise is to begin with the area being considered "more likely private than public" vs the other way around. Study plat maps? Use surveys? How about not start off on EITHER premise, and not assume IN EITHER DIRECTION that, without looking at, without starting with, some sort of general aerial map and comparing that to a general GIS parcel/ownership map, one cannot start safely arguing down one premise OR the other.

    The need to "study the plat maps" and "lay out the plot" is a downright ludacris thought process that only seems to be invoked or talked about in order to initially stick up for the cops that they were somehow legitimately able to begin with the premise that the land is more private than public, vs the other way around (or how about not to be able to start off on any premise at all). So what did the cops use that night, anyhow, IN THE FIRST PLACE, besides an incohate hunch, that the land in question was private? A fence went up, only around benches, that butts up to a building, that didn't block the sidewalk? That means NOTHING. None of that even begins to help differentiate between public or private. And so, without starting SOMEWHERE, there's no need to start raising the bar that we *just* gotta start invoking special plat interpretations and lay out the plots, and send out the surveyors. How about just start with your good old fashioned patrol map (which I know exists in their patrol vehicle - I saw it once) and just LOOK at the GENERAL AREA, and then maybe CLICK on the exact location where William was standing, and then SEE if that pops up with a parcel number (as shown to be very possible in the FCMaps map I offered earlier) OR, SEE if it pops up with nothing (because it's public land that doesn't have a parcel number). No need to start down some premise that the cops can't be performing such BASIC functions of their jobs, FIRST, because of some psudo-controversy that the land in question may be private! How about that it may be public? Hmmm? OR, how about not start off on either premise, either way!

    The reason I am so concerned about this case is because I believe the cops that night tried to invoke and create such an "issue," such a fake controversy over the matter, when in fact THERE WAS NO CONTROVERSY, all done so in order to not be held to the fire that they picked up somebody without a lick of lawful justification. And look, it seems to be working, because now they have everybody and their mother STARTING OFF arguing in their face, on the premise that the land *could* be private property, and as such, can now safely be considered to be *more likely* private than public, evidently now invoking a higher bar to test against, with some need to now invoke "studying plats" and "laying out plots" and "sending out surveyors" -- when such "close to" arguments have no place in such a situation when PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE STARTING OFF ON THE PREMISE THAT THE LAND IS MORE LIKELY PUBLIC THAN PRIVATE. Sure, land in general, all land, *could be* private property. What a profound statement! How about land in general *could also* be public property? MIND BLOWING!

    And so, with jk's logic, evidently the cops can't take a 23-84 violation 911 call either, because it's not their job to "study plats" or "lay out plots" or "send out surveyors." But then how was *I* able to perform such BASIC functions (and be correct) as looking up the general, city-offered GIS map of the area, then click on the section in question, then compare that to the area in general to see if it is indeed within the, what appears to be, the standard 100 foot wide street, that then also appears to run consistently and straighforwardly up and down the city, passing between several, what appear to be, standard, rectangular blocks of parcels. You didn't see ME start off on any premise, without using a MINIMAL set of tools, that the area in question is more likely to be public property that private. And so why the heck do so many people (jk, the cops that night, their supervisor, internal affairs, everybody I seem to talk to on the subject) think they can just willy nilly start off on the premise, without likewise using a MINIMAL set of tools, that the area in question is more likely to be private property than public?

    I'll tell you why. (I think.) I think people want to start off on the premise that it's *just gotta be* more likely to be private than public, and that this has *just gotta be* be some sort of controversy above the cops paygrade, because by doing so they can enjoy, in their difficult to accept denialist type brains, what they now consider to be some benefit of the doubt that they can rest assured by, that "their cops aren't kidnappers" or something to that effect. Because simply arguing down the opposite paradigm, as I have seen, seems to invoke some sort of brain annurism type of behavior, in that they don't even want to, or dare I say, CAN'T even handle, trying on such an opposite thought, that their cops can possibly, MAYBE ACTUALLY BE, real life homeless kidnappers, because such a thought is just yucky, and nobody needs to be trying on yucky thoughts in this picture perfect world of ours! Well, welcome to reality guys. Shit can be tough to handle. DEAL WITH IT?

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    The owner of the land has a right to preclude you from the land
    Just ponder that very statement, anybody out there who still cares to read this thread. What an easy way to not even have to try on the opposite thought in the first place.

    How about, oh dear, dare I speak such words, "the public entity of the land, and all its inhabitants, to include the general pubic at large, have a right to preclude people from putting up fences illegally around THEIR land?"

    Ahh, but trying that thought on means that we gotta start looking into arresting the cops that night for false imprisonment. Oh, yucky! Yucky thought! Get that stuff outta my head! Cops aren't dirty! Nooooo. Must. Continue. Living. In. La. La. Land.

    Denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial, denial....

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: False Arrested for Standing in a Median

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post

    What are you going to do next? Walk down the street carrying an assault rifle?
    What's wrong with.........Oh forget it, that's a whole other topic....

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Assault & Battery: False Arrest and False Charges
    By JDiaz9861 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 02:39 PM
  2. Assault & Battery: False Arrest
    By VAEngineer in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2010, 12:15 PM
  3. Police Conduct: False Arrest
    By NCC 1701 in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 10:37 AM
  4. Jail: False Imprisonment, False Arrest
    By shiznit in forum Probation, Parole and Incarceration
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 03:49 PM
  5. Arrest Procedure: False Arrest
    By Spraynard in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 10:08 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources