• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Illegal trespassing charge but why?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

cunundrum

Registered User
This is regarding CALIFORNIA State law. (Evidence Suppression hearing law.)

PLEASE HELP ME, I THINK MY PUBLIC DEFENDER IS LYING TO ME, HE USED TO BE THE D.A. for the County.

I have been arrested and charged with possession of a bag of marijuana & with a trespassing charge of PC § 602(n) which states: It is illegal to drive any vehicle upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by, another and known not to be open to the general public, without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession.
I was driving my car in some woods one day and decided to park. It looked like it was public property. There were no "no-trespassing" signs located any where. I parked for about an hour and was approached by an officer. The officer asked what I was doing? I said I was just relaxing and wanting to be by myself. The officer said that he was arresting me because he got a call from a concerned citizen saying there was a car located on the property. I asked the officer if it was owner of the property who made the call. He said it was not the actual owner of this property who called. The officer read me my rights and suggested that I keep my mouth shut. When conducting an inventory search of the car, he found a joint of marijuana, and also charged me with that.
The only thing I am wondering about, is that I had no idea that this was private property when I entered onto it. Like mentioned earlier, there were no "no-trespassing" signs posted anywhere, no fences, no homes located nearby. It looked like public or unincorporated land. The penal code I was charged with states that it is illegal to drive any vehicle upon private property "KNOWN NOT THE BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC" without the consent of the owner.

(A) Does this mean, that in order to be convicted of this the prosecution must prove a "knowing-intent" to commit a trespass by entering onto forbidden land?

(B) Furthermore, the officer never attempted to contact the owner of the property to determine whether or not I was lawfully there, nor did he ever ask me if I had permission to be there. Can he simply assume that I was trespassing without ever attempting to make any reasonable inferences regarding this?

The officer said he could tow my vehicle because the vehicle was on private property and it was used to commit the crime of trespass. But vehicle code section 22653 states that in order to tow a vehicle from private property, the police must first obtain consent from the owner. (If the police never attempted to make contact with the owner, how can he arrest me for trespassing and tow my vehicle because it was allegedly used to commit that crime?) I think my public defender is trying to lie to me. He says I shouldn't have been trespassing and smoking weed, and that the cop had every right to arrest me and he isn't going to request a suppression hearing.

PLEASE HELP ME I am young and cannot afford a lawyer. Were the actions of the police lawful under these circumstances? I think the prosecution must prove a "knowing intent" to commit a trespass. Am I right? Can the evidence be suppressed? Thank you very much for any help :)
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
While a notice of no tresspassing will be prima facie evidence that the area isn't open to the public, the lack there of doesn't mean that it is. The statute doesn't say "KNOWN TO BE PRIVATE" but rather "NOT KNOWN TO BE PUBLIC" which puts you at a disadvantage. You've not described how it was you got where you were, but "driving through the woods" doesn't sound like a public place to me.

They don't have to show "knowing intent" other than you intended to drive there. The officer is under no obligation to verify with the owner before arresting you. If you have consent, you can bring it up at trial. All they need is probable cause, and a call from someone saying that there's some pot head parked in there is all they need to arrest you.


The PD says "you should smoke illegal drugs and tresspass" and you think he is lying? You think that being doped up and driving onto other people's property without their consent is OK?

Nothing you said is exculpatory. Let your lawyer see what he can do to mitigate your criminal activity.
 
Are they offering to dump the trespass in exchange for an 11357b plea? Whats the offer? 11357b is about $400 (or you can be on DEJ) and will be destroyed in a couple of years.. ie no record.

You cant force an attorney to file a suppression motion. PDs are aware that people have little to no 4th amendment protection left, so they dont like to waste their time with them. Private attorneys will be more apt to go that route, especially in a weak case like this. I'd say you have some very good areas to attack in this search.

You get to decide whether you plea and decide whether you testify at trial. Thats it. The PD is in charge of the presentation.

You can ask for/file for a marsden hearing if your attorney isnt representing you properly and ask to be assigned a conflict pd. You might want to research that.. most pro pers screw up marsden hearings because they miss the key buzzwords and angling their grievance towards those key buzzwords.

I think a good suppression motion could be filed in this case; but you will need to decide if you can afford to go that route.

Whats the offer?
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
On what basis do you think he should get a suppression. He was on private property. There was a complaint, and the officer had more than enough probable cause to make the arrest. The drugs were found in a legal inventory subsequent to the impound of the car involved in the crime. You could have Johnny Cochran here and he wouldn't get that suppressed. Lawyers, PD or otherwise, do understand when it is inappropriate to file motions in court.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
PLEASE HELP ME, I THINK MY PUBLIC DEFENDER IS LYING TO ME, HE USED TO BE THE D.A. for the County.
Then he is in a uniquely qualified position to tell you how the law is interpreted and how the local courts will interpret the statutes.

I was driving my car in some woods one day and decided to park.
Was this on a paved, public road? Or had you left the main road and turned onto a dirt road? Common sense would dictate that such property may not be open to public use.

PC 602(n):

602. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (v),
subdivision (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully
commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor:

(n) Driving any vehicle, as defined in Section 670 of the Vehicle
Code, upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by,
another and known not to be open to the general public, without the
consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful
possession. This subdivision shall not apply to any person described
in Section 22350 of the Business and Professions Code who is making a
lawful service of process, provided that upon exiting the vehicle,
the person proceeds immediately to attempt the service of process,
and leaves immediately upon completing the service of process or upon
the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful
possession.​
The state will have to show that you knew or reasonably should have known that the property was not open to the general public. If most people who see the path you took would have believed the property not to be open to vehicle traffic, you'll lose. So, ask yourself, will a jury or a judge really believe I was oblivious? Would they come to the same conclusion that it was open to the public?

The officer read me my rights and suggested that I keep my mouth shut. When conducting an inventory search of the car, he found a joint of marijuana, and also charged me with that.
The marijuana charge is a big, whopping nothing offense in CA so that one is not something to worry about.

(A) Does this mean, that in order to be convicted of this the prosecution must prove a "knowing-intent" to commit a trespass by entering onto forbidden land?
It means that the state must show that you knew or reasonably should have known the property was not open to the public.

(B) Furthermore, the officer never attempted to contact the owner of the property to determine whether or not I was lawfully there, nor did he ever ask me if I had permission to be there. Can he simply assume that I was trespassing without ever attempting to make any reasonable inferences regarding this?
Yep. He can make that assumption. However, I am sure that if you can get the property owner to provide a notarized document stating that you had prior permission to be on the property that the DA would drop the trespassing charge. Since I presume you had no such prior permission, I suspect that is an option off the table, correct?

The officer said he could tow my vehicle because the vehicle was on private property and it was used to commit the crime of trespass. But vehicle code section 22653 states that in order to tow a vehicle from private property, the police must first obtain consent from the owner. (If the police never attempted to make contact with the owner, how can he arrest me for trespassing and tow my vehicle because it was allegedly used to commit that crime?)
Is that the authority section the officer cited on the impound form (a CHP 180)? If so, he may have erred if he did not have permission from the owner.

However, if he stored it pursuant to CVC 22651(h) then he could have legally done so.

I think my public defender is trying to lie to me. He says I shouldn't have been trespassing and smoking weed, and that the cop had every right to arrest me and he isn't going to request a suppression hearing.
If he is your attorney you can demand he do most anything. However, I don't see anything to suppress unless the vehicle was not impounded. The only thing to suppress would be the marijuana. As this is a misdemeanor, a preliminary hearing is not required.
 
On what basis do you think he should get a suppression. He was on private property. There was a complaint, and the officer had more than enough probable cause to make the arrest. The drugs were found in a legal inventory subsequent to the impound of the car involved in the crime. You could have Johnny Cochran here and he wouldn't get that suppressed. Lawyers, PD or otherwise, do understand when it is inappropriate to file motions in court.
I never said the words you used. I said there are several areas to attack on this search, and there are. You probably are not aware but in a comprehensive defense, a suppression motion can be used for more than just getting something suppresed.

So you advocate rolling over because the state is likely to prevail if a suppression motion is heard? WEll.. hell, thats about 90%+ of all suppression motions. The state usually wins those. Maybe everyone should just roll over for big Daddy because the state can search someone virtually at will?? Doesnt have anything to do with it, legally or strategically. .. but it IS a money issue... and is it worth fighting??

This case is weak and if he cant fight it with an attorney, then he should at least get a good deal out it, even with a lame duck pd. I would think the DA with their hat in their hand offering to dump the unwinnable idiotic trespassing for the possession (I know I would not plead to the VC version of possession .. only 11357b) as a potential deal.
 
Last edited:

FlyingRon

Senior Member
I assumed you were talking evidence supression based on the comment made my the original poster, sorry.

I did NOT advocate rolling over. I never said that. I told him that his lawyer is NOT lying which he claimed he was. I recommend he listen to his lawyer rather than living in whatever fantasy land that believes that violating two laws is somehow permissible.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I don't know why you think the trespassing charge is "idiotic" and "unwinnable" based upon what little has been presented. I can foresee a scenario that would make it difficult to win (such as a paved road branching off of a main, public paved road) and others that would make it painfully obvious private property (like a dirt drive running 90 degrees off the paved road with a mailbox and a sign that says "McDonald Ranch." Without the details, how can you be so sure that it is "unwinnable?"

It would certainly be in the OP's best interest to seek a plea to H&S 11357(b) rather than PC 602(n), but it may be that the DA will see this as quite winnable and will feel no desire to plea down.

The Devil will be in the details.
 

Dillon

Senior Member
This is regarding CALIFORNIA State law. (Evidence Suppression hearing law.)

PLEASE HELP ME, I THINK MY PUBLIC DEFENDER IS LYING TO ME, HE USED TO BE THE D.A. for the County.

I have been arrested and charged with possession of a bag of marijuana & with a trespassing charge of PC § 602(n) which states: It is illegal to drive any vehicle upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by, another and known not to be open to the general public, without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession.
I was driving my car in some woods one day and decided to park. It looked like it was public property. There were no "no-trespassing" signs located any where. I parked for about an hour and was approached by an officer. The officer asked what I was doing? I said I was just relaxing and wanting to be by myself. The officer said that he was arresting me because he got a call from a concerned citizen saying there was a car located on the property. I asked the officer if it was owner of the property who made the call. He said it was not the actual owner of this property who called. The officer read me my rights and suggested that I keep my mouth shut. When conducting an inventory search of the car, he found a joint of marijuana, and also charged me with that.
The only thing I am wondering about, is that I had no idea that this was private property when I entered onto it. Like mentioned earlier, there were no "no-trespassing" signs posted anywhere, no fences, no homes located nearby. It looked like public or unincorporated land. The penal code I was charged with states that it is illegal to drive any vehicle upon private property "KNOWN NOT THE BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC" without the consent of the owner.

(A) Does this mean, that in order to be convicted of this the prosecution must prove a "knowing-intent" to commit a trespass by entering onto forbidden land?

(B) Furthermore, the officer never attempted to contact the owner of the property to determine whether or not I was lawfully there, nor did he ever ask me if I had permission to be there. Can he simply assume that I was trespassing without ever attempting to make any reasonable inferences regarding this?

The officer said he could tow my vehicle because the vehicle was on private property and it was used to commit the crime of trespass. But vehicle code section 22653 states that in order to tow a vehicle from private property, the police must first obtain consent from the owner. (If the police never attempted to make contact with the owner, how can he arrest me for trespassing and tow my vehicle because it was allegedly used to commit that crime?) I think my public defender is trying to lie to me. He says I shouldn't have been trespassing and smoking weed, and that the cop had every right to arrest me and he isn't going to request a suppression hearing.

PLEASE HELP ME I am young and cannot afford a lawyer. Were the actions of the police lawful under these circumstances? I think the prosecution must prove a "knowing intent" to commit a trespass. Am I right? Can the evidence be suppressed? Thank you very much for any help :)
the towing of the car was illegal, w/o the real property owners consent, if you needed consent, then the officer / PD needed consent of the real property owner to take your car, Right? - one might file charges for theft of ones car.

i would not admit any pot found in the car was actually mine. i mean, it might have been the possession of someone else

also if i was arrested for anything, i would tell the officer " l will not be filing a lawsuit for any property missing from my car, so, no inventory of my car will be necessary for the police to conduct." i will sign a waiver if he likes.

if me, no criminal intent on my part. i was there by accident, unless they can prove otherwise.

so if i was not there by accident, why do they say i was there and can they prove it?

accident mean unintentional, not deliberate, you know? thats why when in an auto accident, one is not generally charged with assault.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
Dillon;2644367]the towing of the car was illegal, w/o the owners consent, if you needed consent, then the officer / PD needed consent to take your car/property, Right?
one might file charges for theft of ones car.
you really think so? OP was arrested and the car was on private property of a person OP did not know. The police would actually be remiss to allow the vehicle to remain on this persons property as it would burden them.

i would not admit any pot found in the car was actually mine. i mean, it might have been left there by someone else.
and for some reason you believe such a claim means anything? If a person possesses a vehicle, it is an accepted legal premise they also possess the contents of that vehicle.

also if i was arrested for anything, i would tell the officer " l will not be filing a lawsuit for any property missing from my car, so no inventory will be necessary for the police to conduct." i will sign a waive if he likes.
ya, like that means anything.

if me, no criminal intent on my part. i was there by accident, unless they can prove otherwise.
not necessarily a defense. The actual charge and specifics of the situation would need to be known to be able to determine if the lack of intent (intent to trespass I presume you mean) is relevant.


so if i was not there by accident, why do they say i was there and can they prove it?
intent to trespass may not be relevant. Intent to drive the car where it was found may be all the intent required.

accident mean unintentional, not deliberate, you know? thats why when in an auto accident, ones is not usually charge with assault.
No. accidentally being on the property would be if a pterodactyl flew down and picked you up and dropped you onto the property. Driving a vehicle, moving the steering wheel so you end up on the property in question is intentional. In the first situation, you had no intent to cause yourself to be on the property. In the second, your intent was to cause yourself to be on the property.
 
I don't know why you think the trespassing charge is "idiotic" and "unwinnable" based upon what little has been presented.
Cuz whats presented isnt trespassing. If he wants to pose a good trespassing charge or add more details to clarify it for discussion he can do so. This was a weak sauce arrest and tow as presented.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
You see... Dillon callnot believe that anyone would be able to hold pot without wanting to smoke it.

Therefore, if you offer the pot to the cop as a wink wink kind of bribe by telling him/her that you don't want an inventory, the cop, who MUST have it, will just pocket the pot.

Yeah...

Just goes to show. The primary results of pot smoking is 1) believing that you come up with wild legal theories that will immediately make drug use legal, and; 2) you believe that EVERYONE loves pot as much as you do.

Not addictive, bah.
 

Dillon

Senior Member
you really think so? OP was arrested and the car was on private property of a person OP did not know. The police would actually be remiss to allow the vehicle to remain on this persons property as it would burden them.

its my understanding, the law says the police need the real property owners consent to tow a car off his property. if the real property owner did not press charges against the OP there is no crime. the DA cant represent the State, if he does not represent the real property owner.

and for some reason you believe such a claim means anything? If a person possesses a vehicle, it is an accepted legal premise they also possess the contents of that vehicle.

one can, by waiver, intent to abandon possession of the individual contents of the car if the property is stolen from the car, by not filing a lawsuit. - one must understand the law not just know it.

intent to trespass may not be relevant. Intent to drive the car where it was found may be all the intent required.

thats the original charge (tresspassing) not chaged with intent to drive.

i dont admit to driving business equipment, but accidently being on an unknown easement
.


No. accidentally being on the property would be if a pterodactyl flew down and picked you up and dropped you onto the property. Driving a vehicle, moving the steering wheel so you end up on the property in question is intentional. In the first situation, you had no intent to cause yourself to be on the property. In the second, your intent was to cause yourself to be on the property.
did the officer see me drive, then facts not in evidence.

i dont generally drive motor vehicle equipment, but i do move with my private consumer goods.
 
Last edited:

cyjeff

Senior Member
Your understanding is incorrect.

I see someone going through my neighbors garage when I know they are on vacation, I can call the police and have them check it out.

Happens every day.

Maybe a neighbor saw the car or the lights and called the police. Perfectly legal.
 

Dillon

Senior Member
Your understanding is incorrect.

I see someone going through my neighbors garage when I know they are on vacation, I can call the police and have them check it out.

Happens every day.

Maybe a neighbor saw the car or the lights and called the police. Perfectly legal.
still, dont mean one is intentionally committing a crime, you think?

i am sure you have untentionally broken the law more-than a few times, and not been convicted, because of a mistake you made, Right?

its generally the words one uses that determines if one prevails in a court of Record?


its like The Lord Jesus said, by your words you will be condemned or set free +++
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top