Public property and trespassing
 

For the past few months I've been taking my dog to a nearby park. It's in an isolated area. The park is a big grass field, with one swing set, at the bottom of a hill. There are about 3 acres of woods that go up the hill to houses whose fences delimit the park. In the park are a couple of trails that run from people's gates to the field at the bottom of the hill.

Lately I've been setting up my own trail for mountain bike riding through the woods. I ended up with about 1/3 of a mile of trail with a couple good short climbs. The woods are covered in vines and there are several debris piles and brush piles, and sectioned logs where someone cut down a big tree and left in the park. Clearing the trail meant chopping some branches, pulling a lot of limbs out from the vines, etc. Also I collected a big pile of junk - tires, plant buckets, and plastic.

So...anyway, I first rode the new trail this past weekend. The whole time I've been in the woods I never saw anyone. This time, however, a couple kids came over to their fence and I said hi. My dog ran over to sniff them and we talked for about two minutes, then in another part of the woods I saw two other kids and said hi and got my dog and kept going.

So tonight I got off work early, and while it's still light and warm I go riding. I took a roofing hammer (hatchet) for various cleanup duties and stopped a few times to clear some little stuff. It's a short route, so I was just riding laps. I saw some people up in a yard when I was going downhill, then rode around again. This time, I saw a guy with a policeman in one of the yards. I was off the bike for a walky part, and the policeman told me to come over where he was, I finally got over because he didn't want me to take the easy path, he made me climb over one of the brush piles.

Then he started asking me a bunch of questions - why was I there, what was I doing. I was on my bike, with a helmet, bike shorts, hydration pack so I thought it was pretty obvious, but I know cops have a tough enough job so I was just "yes sir" and "no sir". I didn't have ID so they called in my SSN and I found out I have no priors! Another cop came and I said I thought it was a public area, and I was just riding my bike. They asked what was in the bag and I told them (including the hatchet) and they searched all of it.

Turns out, somebody freaked because I talked to those two kids on Sunday. It makes sense if someone freaks they would call the police and the police would talk to me; that part I understand. The cops said I was not allowed in those woods ever again, I said I thought it was a public space and they said it was, but if I was ever back there again I would be charged with trespassing. They said they had tried to catch me a previous time, too.

My question about all this is - what is this legal concept called? They really had no problem with me being where I was, or with me extending a trail. It was pretty much that I said hi to a couple kids. They said I can go in the grass part of the park. This doesn't sound like a restraining order or anything I've heard of. And I really wanted a nearby trail. The cops said I would have to get in my car and drive to a trail. I know better than to argue law (I apologized for taking their time) with the police but this all seemed really weird.

Sad day when you cannot be friendly.

A few years back I was walking the dog around the old neigborhood and some kids asked if they could pet the dog. I said maybe some other time and kept going. Next lap around, I stopped for a few seconds, and while the kids came to the dog (on one of those 20-foot retractable leashes), the mom came out of the house and asked me to leave. I said "Yes, maam, the kids just asked to pet the dog. Have a nice day" and left. Felt very awkward. Bummer for you to have the cops involved.

Good question. You know, I might be tempted to walk down to the station and say just what you said here.

Something to the effect of "Hey, I understand that someone might be nervous about their kids talking to a stranger, but to ban ME from a public park for an over-worried parent is not right.

Obviously challenging the officers in public won't get you anywhere.. Perhaps if you show up and have a reasonable conversation on their turf they'll be more at ease and reasonable.. because they were clearly NOT being reasonable on-site.

If this is a public park you have every right... ...and if this doesn't work I suppose it is up to you whether or not you want to fight, and bring potential problems on yourself.

I'd find out first if it really IS public. There's no way in hell they could arrest you if it is and you aren't doing anything illegal or "disturbing the peace." What would they charge you with?

People suck. I'd definitely look into that more. Generally I respect cops, and I am thankful that they are around, but they may have had some preconceived idea, and they may have beet trying to intimidate you without any real legal grounds. I'd check into it and then if you go back I'd stay away from the kids and yards.

This is the problem with publicly owned land. The people whose property borders the land often think they "own" it, when they really don't. At the minimum, they assume that they have a right to say what goes on there more so than other folks in the community who have paid for it.

I don’t know that you should have been out there chopping down trees without a permit, or whatever, but the bottom line is if the land is public then you own it just as much as the people who live near it.

Seems your tax dollars are paying for some nice real estate for a few fortunate folks who happen to border the property. While I’m no lawyer, I have observed that, at least in my community, a minority of complaining homeowners usually trumps all other parties involved in these kinds of disputes.

Anyway, I try to stay far away from any kids who want to talk to me or my dog, just for these reasons. Sad, I think. But a reality of the world we live in.

Welcome to the new world order.

Scary ain't it....

I used to have a couple of cops as hunting partners. There have been several in my family. To a man, they were not above intimidating citizens by stretching the truth a bit or even out and out lying. Every one of them disclosed this to me at one time or another. They would justify this behavior by claiming it made their jobs easier at times.

All I can say is fight back. Take their badge numbers and names. Demand their supervisor's name. Go talk to that supervisor. Return to the park and challenge them to actually arrest you if they threaten to do so again. Essentialy, stand firm and do not give in to their attemped intimidation. If you have truly done nothing illegal, and have every right to be there, it will prove more hassle than they are willing to deal with to continue to press their intimidation home.

When you have trouble with officers behaving improperly (the officers in this case were completely out-of-line) get their names, badge numbers and the names of their immediate supervisors, then explain to them that their behavior is unacceptable and that you will be writing a letter that you will request to be made part of their permanent file that documents their unacceptable behavior.

The police cannot stop you on the street, or other public property, without reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in some wrong-doing.

I'll bet if you do some digging in this case, you will find the officers who harassed you (or some of their superiors) are friends with some of the property owners next to this public land. I'll bet they are abusing the authority of their office trying to turn this public area into their "private playground."

Whenever topics deal with these types of issues, a lot of people chime in with their thoughts and advice. Often though, a lot of that advice, although provided with good intentions, is misinformed, or simply not good, and potentially more troublesome than the initial problem.

I can give you some credible insight on some of the points you've raised. However, none of us were there, nor do we, or you, have the entire picture to fully understand everyone's perspective. Best we can do is deal with what we've got without assumptions, of which there could be numerous.


"I'd find out first if it really IS public. There's no way in hell they could arrest you if it is and you aren't doing anything illegal or "disturbing the peace." What would they charge you with? "
CSTREIT provided some excellent, level-headed advice, however this last bit can be a problem. You see, "Public Property" is property that is owned and maintained by the municipality or county in which it lies. There is an implied right of open use by all members of the public. HOWEVER, as with all property, the owner and/or agent has the right to limit activities and access to that property. For instance, the placement of signs regarding littering or limiting activities or times. These are direct indications that the public properties still come with restrictions.
A police officer is an agent of the municipality, county or state, whichever it may be, and therefore acts on behalf of that entity thereby having power over such restrictions. Failing to leave, or returning on property, even public, once an agent or owner has forbidden such an act is trespassing. Specific details of the laws differ with each statutory act, however the principles remain constant. So for the most part, if a police officer tells you not to do something, you're best not to.

Some others provided comments
"if the land is public then you own it just as much as the people who live near it. "
This is simply wrong. The local government owns the land. Not you, not the bordering neighbors. Neither of you actually pay employees and book them to maintain the lands and playground equipment. This is done by the government out of the local tax base. You no more own the public park than you do the public streets. Although we often like to think we own the road.

"All I can say is fight back. Take their badge numbers and names. Demand their supervisor's name. "
"When you have trouble with officers behaving improperly (the officers in this case were completely out-of-line) "
"explain to them that their behavior is unacceptable and that you will be writing a letter that you will request to be made part of their permanent file "
These are all unsupported assumptions based on very limited information, and potentially problematic advice.
What we have is one side of the story, which is very diplomatic and provides some evidence to indicate the opposite of what others believe it was.
Looking at Bill's original information, there is no mention of any problems with the manner in which the police spoke with him, the way they treated him, or that they did anything out of the ordinary. From Bill's own story, he makes it clear that someone "Freaked out" over him speaking with the children. In todays day and age, people can be overprotective to the point of being paranoid. Children and adults alike. We don't know what the children said, or what the parents told the police. What we do know is that someone "freaked out" which would indicate that the information given to the police was much different than what Bill has told us. People embellish, exagerate and assume all the time. Just look at the responses here.
Many here have painted the cops as horrible corrupt abusers of the public, with little to no information. Is it any surprise that even one parent could have done the same and labelled Bill? Happens all the time.

"Return to the park and challenge them to actually arrest you if they threaten to do so again. Essentialy, stand firm and do not give in to their attemped intimidation. "
DON'T DO THIS. Please, for your own sake. You will only look like a trouble maker, and one can only expect that police, when faced with a challenge to their authority in a public forum, and even the slightest ability to do something about it, will. If they told you not to come back and you challenge that, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll call you on it, and you'll be the loser, plus it only makes you look bad, in that you appeared to be looking for problems.


In short, given the limited info we have, there is no indication the police conducted their investigation any differently than any others would. They were obviously called there. We don't know what was said, however it appears it was something which made it necessary for them to look into. This is indicated by the facts that they told Bill they were there because someone called as he had spoken with the children, and that someone, whether it be the same complainant or not "Freaked out". They weren't just passing through and decided to pick on Bill.

As far as their direction to not return to the park, given that they are agents of the gov't they can do this. Is it right? I don't know. What info were they given? We can only guess.

Take CSTREIT's advice and have a civil conversation with them away from the "freaked out" complainants. They can probably shed some more light on it for you, and you can probably do the same for them.

As a police officer, I can honestly say that there are good and bad in every bunch. I've met some fellow cops I wouldn't trust, nor would I rely on or call competent. I've also met those on power trips. They do exist, but there's an equal number of those if not more who don't wear uniforms, and I meet them daily. We all do.

The long and the short is that the majority of citizens, and the majority of cops are honest and fair. To make assumptions and label people without proper facts simply makes one part of the problem.


My very long $0.02
Take it or leave it.

Jim

I'd collect info of the event and speak to someone at the Rep or Dem Club.. especially if you are a campaign contributor.

fwiw all property owners should pay dues to both political sides every yr.. even $10 to each.

So who authorizes banning a user from a public park? Surely not the cops and hopefully no one in law enforcement has that authority.

billwagnon, it's the end of innocence. "Tried and Convicted in 30 Minutes or Less" It's a new reality show on ABC.

Isn't that the Park Police's jurisdiction. Shouldn't they be the one who bans people from parks? I guess in MO, anything goes.:rolleyes:

This is a very odd situation. Its unfortunate that the cops elected to only hear one side of the story. If it truly is public land, and you were not trespassing, I don't see how they can ask you to stay away. I am not sure what the complaint to the police was, but it is odd that they would have staked out looking for you. It seems to me that you are entitled to a bit more due process than being banned from a public place on the alegation that you talk to some kids behind a fence.

I too would consider contacting the more senior of the officers and re-opening the discussion. I can't see why the final outcome is that you can be banned from using the space on a one-sided complaint. Its probably worth making sure that this is not a common space that part of a development (in which case the cop probably would be justified in banning you).

Let us know if you take any steps to resolve this.

While I certainly understand your position, look at it from the cops side.

Report of man repeatedly spotted in the woods. Wearing tight bike shorts. Talking to kids. When interrogated by Police, had a hatchet in his possession.

I type this as I am watching the morning news about the Catholic priest pedophiles, and the teachers (mostly female lately) having sex with kids.

I suspect this has started people calling in ANYTHING that even remotely looks suspicious.

Lose the bike shorts. Sorry, that sounded wrong. You know what I meant.... see? ANYTHING can be taken wrong.

Where did this happen?
City or county coppers?

I find it wrong to ban a user without proven guilt of wrongdoing.

Seems like some would give the benefit of doubt to the cops and others over a fellow Pelicanite.

I don't live MO, but it sounds like a nice state. I don't want anyone to know where I live, because one day a disgruntled net surfer will call my local cops and have me banned from my computer. :p

If billwagnon is banned from the forest, all users should be banned.

Yeah, would agree that if you fight to stay on the trails, you'd have to lose the hatchet.

I'm not giving any cop the benefit of the doubt! I was just posing a question based on this very strange encounter BillWagnon had. I don't see how local cops have the right to ban someone from a park, isn't that the park polices job.
Either way, it sounds like Bill was unnecessarily harassed. BTDT many times. I had a police officer tell me not to come back to a certain city(the whole city), and he said if he saw me again, he'd arrest me on the spot. :rolleyes:

OK, then we agree to agree. :)

Thought you were implying the cops were the "park police." That's what I get for assuming.

Copper, you certainly offer an interesting perspective on this. A Canadian perspective, however, judging from your location. Most of what you say, while it may very well apply in Canada, has no application here in the States. Police officers here simply CANNOT restrict any one individual citizen's right to access a public place. Certainly not on their spoken word offered at the moment.

There are mechanisms in place, operating through the courts, that this access can be restricted. That would usually be in the form of some kind of a restraining order obtained by the citizens, not the cops. In that case, the cops enforce the order. They simply do not make up their own on the fly in this country. Maybe in Canada, but not here.

Challenging them with knowledge of our rights as citizens of the United States usually results in THEM losing, not us. We have many rights that we have not yet given up in this country. There are those of us still willing to possibly suffer a bit of personal inconvenience to ensure we do not. I have personally dug my heels in on several occasions such as this. I have even wound up in handcuffs in the back seat of a cop car. Never in jail, however. The bullies have aleways backed down at whatever point would generate an "offical" record of their actions.

I had a situation where a Nevada State Trooper crossed the center line on a corner, I had to swerve onto the shoulder and threw him the bird in the process(His truck was very dirty and had a really small light.) He turned around caught me waithing on the shoulder standing by my vehicle. He was verbally abusive and inappropriate. I got statements from the other 4 guys with me about the incident and sent a letter of my own to the state of Nevada. He was placed on unpaid leave for 2 weeks and had a formal reprimand placed in his personel file. I still have a copy of that reprimand somewhere.

If you are on public property and are not doing anything wrong, I would send a letter to the chief of whatever department is involved, with copies to my state and federal representatives as well as the Mayor if it is in a town that has one. I can understand the parents being concerned, but that does not make infringing on your rights okay.

I would consult with a local attorney to find the best way to resolve this.
Definately worth paying for an hour of attorney time.

Sadly, if you continue to hang around that park, you will be viewed with distrust. If anything ever happened to one of those kids, you would likely be the first suspect. They go to your house, confiscate your computer, find the grid girls thread you downloaded, discover one of the models was only 17, so now they have a suspect whose computer was found loaded with kiddie porn!

Do you really want all that attention?

And instead of getting advice and support from this forum, everyone would be posting calls for your castration and slow torture. :rolleyes:

You made the mistake of talking to kids. Don't you dare do that again!

What a world we live in.

I'm not at all comfortable with most of Copper's advice. A government does not exist, apart from its citizens. You own it. Yes, a municipality can restrict usage, but those restrictions would need to apply evenly, and it is not within a police officer's authority to make those decisions "on the fly." I would agree with his advice to not directly challenge the officer's directive by simply thwarting it. But I would MOST CERTAINLY make a good deal of noise. I'd write the letters. I'd attend a City Council meeting. I'd be a big fat blip on everyone's radar screen and once I verified that it is a public park and that usage limitations would need to be posted in order to apply to you, then I'd use the park in every available, legal fashion. By that time, the written record would be crystal clear that you are visible, above board, that you have inquired, that you are not hiding anything and that you understand your rights. This vision of government being Big Brother has GOT to be debunked, in the minds of citizens who think gubmint is "them," and in the minds of police officers who think it's theirs.

When I first bought my home, I was greeted by the home owner's association rep. I was the last house on a publicly maintained road.

Along side my home was a "private" road that fed off of the public road to an association of 18 homes.....the rep stated that I had no rights to the road and any use was prohibited. A little research found out that the rep was wrong, the city was wrong and I prevailed in using it to access the back of my property and ultimately built a garage up behind my home.

Do some research, write letters. Don't let bullies push you around.

Seriously though...

There's no reason to hit this head on with anger from day 1. Maybe both of those cops have kids and as mentioned guy in biker shorts with a hatchet might concern ME a bit if my son was talking to him...

Go down, talk to the cops and/or their boss and see what's up. What can it hurt. If they are *********s in private, then you really know where you stand. Decide then if you want to fight it or not... ..and decide then if it's worth the potential hassle. Maybe they ARE on a power trip and will make your life difficult. Cops represent a slice of the general population and just like there are good people and bad people, much remains the same with cops...

I'm guessing there's a chance that if you show up there and talk to them, they'll tell you why they made a decision, and perhaps even come around...

Uh....where do you think the government gets the money for the local tax base? The citizens indeed pay for the land and for the employees. Therefore, you have a right to participate in deciding how that land is used.

We also pay the cops' salaries.:D

To the extent that copper says we dont, technically, "own" it, from a legal standpoint he is right. I meant from a more abstract standpoint all things public are owned by, well, the public.

My point is the citizen living nearest a public property should not get to dictate how it is used any more than all the others who have paid for it.

Any thread of this type, whether it be a situation like this or someone stopped for speeding, always illicits an interesting and varied debate.

"Copper, you certainly offer an interesting perspective on this. A Canadian perspective, however, judging from your location. "
Again, an assumption based on little knowledge of the facts. I am a Canadian police officer, however I travel to the US frequently throughout the year on contract and train US law enforcement officers.

"Police officers here simply CANNOT restrict any one individual citizen's right to access a public place."
They most certainly CAN and DO. Simply ask your local agency whether their officers have the right to remove an individual from a public place when deemed necessary for whatever reason. It does happen and will continue to happen. We see examples of it everyday in our lives and on the news.

"They simply do not make up their own on the fly in this country. Maybe in Canada, but not here."
The very nature of the job requires the majority of decisions police make to occur "on the fly". Time is great, if you have it, but in reality, this isn't the case. Canada or the US, it's the same job at it's root.

"Yes, a municipality can restrict usage, but those restrictions would need to apply evenly, and it is not within a police officer's authority to make those decisions "on the fly." "
I see no indication that anything has been done here which would not have applied evenly if it were someone other than Bill in the same circumstances. No implications of racism, targetting or vendettas.

"A government does not exist, apart from its citizens. You own it. "
"This vision of government being Big Brother has GOT to be debunked, in the minds of citizens who think gubmint is "them," and in the minds of police officers who think it's theirs."
Two completely contradictory statements in the same argument. On the one hand, you imply Bill owns the park because the government exists only because of it's citizens. However you find part of the problem to be citizens who think that the gov't is "them". These simply cannot stand together.

Long and short, Bill's in a quandry. The debate's over what to do now. Lots of good advice has been given and the common thread seems to be approach it in a civil manner and speak with the officers involved. If they turn out to be unreasonable at that point, reassess your position and take your next step.

Again, my $0.02
(Which to Jeff Higgins would be about $0.016 USD and therefore not as valuable.) :D

So be it.
Jim

i like the advice to show up at the police station. bring a map. just to clarify things. then ask what law you are violating by being there. ask for specifics.

And more specifically, what it is he is alleged to have done while he was there.

I'm all for rights, but there is too far:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1132772975.jpg

For what little it's worth, I wear spandex shorts, shave my legs, and have no shame. No, I am not pictured above. :p SmileWavy

Hey dummy. They thought you were a pervert lurking in the woods waiting for your chance to talk to the prey... I mean Kids.
Go from work.. in the Porsche ... nice clothes.. maybe suit, and talk to the officers supervisor.
Ride the damn bike.

Copper, again I find your perspective interesting. And valuable, even at the current exchange rate. I think the core issue we are addressing here is just where a citizen's rights end and a cop's authority starts. I suspect there may possibly be at least two things that color your perspective a little differently than the rest of our's.

I think that the line is probably drawn differently in the States than it is in Canada. Despite your exposure to fellow LEO's here in the States, I'm not sure the differences would be readily apparent until you tried to push that line here, in the States. Some of our own cops do not understand where that line is drawn, like the ones that hassled Bill.

The second factor would be that, well, you are... a cop. It is not uncommon to find your bretheren with a somewhat over-inflated estimation of their authority. Like these two cops. We have a legal system in place here that seems to have to continually remind them of their place; our rights vs. their authority.

Yes cops can and will remove people from public places, at the cops' sole discretion. In this country, there are legal ramifications for doing so. The cops better be damn sure their reason will hold up in court. It can mean their jobs and their livelyhoods, quite literally. If they are simply trying to throw their weight around, I feel it is a citizen's duty to fight back.

Yes we do expect them to make decisions on the fly. I think you are confusing the issue here. Restricting citizens' access to public places, or other restrictions on their behavior, is the province of the law as passed by our processes to do so in general, and court orders against specific citizens on an individual basis. It is the cops' job to enforce the law and these court orders. Not to make up their own on the fly. That is what these cops were effectively doing - making up law on the spot and pretending they have that authority. They do not. They should be challenged if they think they do.

Yeah, complain to the dumb cops supervisor, and get a formal complaint put on their records. Enough complaints overtime (because theye are unsuitable for the job), and you'll get them fired.

Jeff,

I would have to lean in your direction. Not sure if Copper has a different set of rules in the GWN but my experience is that if a citizen is not doing something illegal (public drunkeness etc) out in the open that removing them will result in problems when its taken to court.

Sure hope that the police are not making up the rules as they go, otherwise they will be getting a unpaid vacation in the future. It sure seems like their actions in this case are not valid and I would go to the police station and have a talk with their superiors.

Joe A

A very calm and reasonable answer, Copper. But if you decide you want to escalate, you might find this image handy:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1132776045.jpg

Jeff, in regards to coloring (or as we spell it up here colouring) my perspective by being a cop, I refer you to my initial post which contained the following;

"As a police officer, I can honestly say that there are good and bad in every bunch. I've met some fellow cops I wouldn't trust, nor would I rely on or call competent. I've also met those on power trips. They do exist, but there's an equal number of those if not more who don't wear uniforms, and I meet them daily. We all do."

Those who know me here, know that I am the first to acknowledge any clear wrongdoing on the part of my brethren.

After all, I may have a Pcar, but I still appreciate the luxury of my Lincoln. I have no problems seeing different sides.

But you have to acknowledge that you are making assumptions when judging their "over-inflated estimation of their authority". We do not know what information they had been given, so neither of us can properly gauge what authority they were acting under. If any.

I will completely agree with the statements that a cop cannot indiscriminately prohibit someone from a public place without just cause. This would simply be communism.

But, it seems that they were given cause in this instance, and the abuse of the facts falls on the citizens who complained, and in Bill's own words "freaked out" and not the cops. They acted on information provided. The validity of the information is what comes to task, not the required subsequent action of the cop.

If I were to report that Bill hit me while I walked through that forest and he told me to get off his bike path, the cops would have to investigate. It's their duty, and we would fault them for not doing so. They only have the info I have provided, and have no idea I am lying. If I've made it look convincing, they'll deal with Bill appropriately, and Bill is screwed. No different than these people freaking out for whatever reason and telling the cops they don't want Bill around their kids cause they're scared.
(supposition on my part of their actual direction)

When a drunk driver hits a person, we don't blame the car for the input it was given do we?

I love this stuff. We could go back and forth for hours. The many views and perceptions we all have is what makes the world so interesting.

That's it till tomorrow. Off to work. Can't wait to harrass some innocent, law abiding citizens minding their own business. :D

Jim

Copper, you seem reasonable and mature, and have made some helpful and accurate remarks here. And I have a great deal of respect for the men in blue, generally. I'm putty in their hands when they are doing their jobs, and I appreciate their courage, their professionalism and their great challenge. And the important service they provide to our communities.

I have to agree with those who suspect the officer in question was overstepping his boundaries. I suspect this was an authoritative-sounding bluff. If someone is going to be banned from a public park, there will have to be a reason beyond some police officer's directive. We have courts for this. And it would be interesting to hear the officer's rationale for requesting thos fellow be banned from the park. If it is nothing more than a neighbor's fear and complaint, and the possibility that maybe the fellow might perhaps do something wrong......then I think the fellow's access to the park would be affirmed. We don't restrict peoples' freedoms here in the US according to what we think maybe they might perhaps at some point possibly do.

Oh, and I don't see a contradiction between my remarks about who owns the government. Some folks in my country fail to understand their ownership of our public process. They consider gubmint to be "them." Government is by the people, of the people and for the people. At least in my country it is. I just wish more Americans would understand that and participate.

No one said Police Officers cant lie to you or deceive you, something they will try to do to those who dont know their rights. The best way to protect yourself is to know your rights or sadly in todays world get a lawyer who does.