Trespass/Harassment

[Johnmelissa]

CA My neighbor has directed a motion detector onto my property and when I step out my garage door and break the beam from the motion detector, a flood light goes on, also directed at my property. Is it trespass/harassment to deliberately place a beam from a motion detector onto my property and shine a light on my property? What law is concerned with beams and lights placed on another person's property?

[CdwJava]

If there is no city ordinance to cover light placement (and I have heard of a few that do), then you may have to resort to "reasonable" measures to include asking the neighbor if they could adjust the beam. if they don't, then you might have to resort to civil court if that is the direction you want to go.

- Carl

[Johnmelissa]

Carl, we've spoken before. It sounds like you find that there is no enforceable law about deliberate trespass or directing of electronic beams onto another's property to harass. This involves the neighbor/cop against whom we've had 3 complaints sustained. We spent $6K in Arbitration and he was ordered to disconnect/remove 2 floodlights in the BACK yard. Subsequently, he aimed his vehicle high beams at my wife while she was watering the front lawn and just sat there shinning them on her. Next, he directed the beam of a motion detector and a floodlight at our FRONT yard. When we enter our front yard, on our own property, we are lit up by the floodlight. The harassment from this Riverside Country Sheriff's Deputy is perpetual and incredible and no organization or agency will take any meaningful corrective action (our house is for sale and on the MLS). The public must not know the low lifes that populate the police ranks. I can't believe a commanding officer would accept behavior like this in one of his troops and allow this person to represent the law. The Police Chief of Moreno Valley's last letter discussing the sustained complaints against him stated that we should call him with any concerns. Do you think we should call to inform the Chief that his officer just can't control himself? Is this an ability or readiness for work issue?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Johnmelissa

Carl, we've spoken before. It sounds like you find that there is no enforceable law about deliberate trespass or directing of electronic beams onto another's property to harass.

Yes we have. And unless you can prove the intent to disturb your peace, I can't see any element of the Penal Code that has been broken. Harassment is primarily covered under civil processes.

I can't believe a commanding officer would accept behavior like this in one of his troops and allow this person to represent the law.

As I have mentioned previously, the employing agency may have no lawful nexus under which they can discipline the officer for his off-duty, non-criminal conduct. Even if repugnant, the law is pretty clear on who may be subject to discipline and under what circumstances.

The Police Chief of Moreno Valley's last letter discussing the sustained complaints against him stated that we should call him with any concerns. Do you think we should call to inform the Chief that his officer just can't control himself? Is this an ability or readiness for work issue?

It very well might be. If he said to call him, by all means do so. It is possible that the Chief has found the nexus he needed if he has previously sustained any of these complaints against the officer. However, if I had to guess, the neighbor will just say it was an accident and that he aimed it in error ... but, maybe, the Chief can get him to correct the problem even if the neighbor doesn't have to admit "guilt".

Good luck.

- Carl

[Johnmelissa]

As I stated, we just spent $6K for Arbitration to have the neighbor/cop ORDERED to disconnect/remove 2 floodlights on the side of the house so he started the lighting harassment on the front. After 3 sustained complaints and the arbitration concerning the side yard lighting harassment that he was ordered to stop, I would think anyone would be able to see the continuous pattern of harassment and that it would be proved. I guess modern jurisprudence makes law unenforceable. The pattern is clear and has been proven to Chiefs of Police and Arbitrators but the neighbor/police officer knows that nothing serious will be done to him so he just continues at will and at his great pleasure. What does it indicate that my family is selling this house and moving away from the psycho cop? The original question, however, was about any law restricting the deliberate aiming of beams of a motion detector or light to harass. You're saying that anyone can aim any type of electronic beam on another's property with impunity? It seem like there would be laws addressing things like lasers etc. There must be laws against those miscreants who aim laser beams at landing pilots, no?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Johnmelissa

As I stated, we just spent $6K for Arbitration to have the neighbor/cop ORDERED to disconnect/remove 2 floodlights on the side of the house so he started the lighting harassment on the front. After 3 sustained complaints and the arbitration concerning the side yard lighting harassment that he was ordered to stop, I would think anyone would be able to see the continuous pattern of harassment and that it would be proved.

Then take him back to court or arbitration. I agree with you, he is being an Adam Henry ... but, I don't see a crime - I see a cause of a civil action.

I guess modern jurisprudence makes law unenforceable.

If the arbitration order were written so as to allow that loophole, then it may not be enforceable for this new offense. If it was so specific as to address only the back yard light and not address anything else, then it may not be covered and you might have to go back again.

But, if the Chief said to call him, then do so. He may have leverage he can apply, and if he does, I suspect he can apply it quicker - and cheaper - than a civil court.

The original question, however, was about any law restricting the deliberate aiming of beams of a motion detector or light to harass. You're saying that anyone can aim any type of electronic beam on another's property with impunity?

Effectively, yes. There is no Penal Code section on point. There is no specific CRIME for harassment, though it can be a cause for civil action.

Before you jump on me, *I* do not write the laws. And if we criminalized annoying behavior, we could double the number of offenses prosecuted. Most the calls we get tend to involve annoying and non-criminal behavior.

It seem like there would be laws addressing things like lasers etc. There must be laws against those miscreants who aim laser beams at landing pilots, no?

There are - and aiming lasers at ANYONE. There are also laws against aiming lights of specific candlepower at pilots and drivers, too. But, I doubt that the candlepower is that high, and since you are not in an aircraft or moving vehicle, it is not going to apply.

- Carl

[Johnmelissa]

Yeah, my family has been forced to sell its house and move because of the relentless harassment brought about by a "sworn police officer" next door. I've tried to demonstrate a clear pattern of harassment but it's as if we live in the "Twilight Zone" and the "authorities" refuse to recognize and address it beyond 3 sustained complaints. This type of behavior stains the uniform and brings discredit on the organization. I don't understand how it is tolerated on any level except to draw the analogy of doctors who refuse to speak ill of other doctors. On the other hand, I do appreciate the immutable loyalty to one's own but it is, ironically in the case of law enforcement, to the detriment of the law.

The most egregious example of what I meant by modern jurisprudence making law unenforceable is O.J. Simpson. We may all see things clearly but the law comes to a different and unexpected conclusion.

Not one letter of my narrative is intended as criticism of you and I only refer to you as the objective entity presenting perspectives. My words are not ad hominem they are juxtapositions of logic.

And thanks. I guess I'll call the Sheriff and ask the responding deputy to ask him to STOP aiming a motion detector beam and light on our property.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Johnmelissa

I've tried to demonstrate a clear pattern of harassment but it's as if we live in the "Twilight Zone" and the "authorities" refuse to recognize and address it beyond 3 sustained complaints.

All of which are civil in nature and not criminal. Law enforcement acts on criminal matters, not civil ones. Your situation falls into that civil arena and is one that is frustrating even to us, believe it or not. We (the police) have no authority in a civil issue unless granted the authority to act as a result of a court order.

This type of behavior stains the uniform and brings discredit on the organization.

I agree. Hence the reason a nexus can often be found in order to effect change in the officer. But, this is harder in larger agencies where the officer lives far from the jurisdiction and when the activity is not based upon the officer's use of his rank or position with the employing agency. Absent that nexus, the agency must usually bite it's tongue from a legal perspective as it would have no legal grounds to apply any form of discipline. In fact, if it were to try, the agency could be found liable for civil penalties. There is a vast swath of the Government Code that covers how and when one can discipline public employees and under what circumstances ... there are also penalties (even criminal ones) for intentionally violating those codes. This is why the employing agency may find it hard to act against your neighbor.

The most egregious example of what I meant by modern jurisprudence making law unenforceable is O.J. Simpson. We may all see things clearly but the law comes to a different and unexpected conclusion.

Assuming you mean the case where he murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman, that was the case of a starstruck jury and a prosecution that made some errors. That jury WANTED to find a reason to find him not guilty.

Not one letter of my narrative is intended as criticism of you and I only refer to you as the objective entity presenting perspectives. My words are not ad hominem they are juxtapositions of logic.

No problem.

And thanks. I guess I'll call the Sheriff and ask the responding deputy to ask him to STOP aiming a motion detector beam and light on our property.

Also try calling his chief and letting him know what has been going on since the last time.

- Carl