Illegal trespassing charge but why?

[Dillon]

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.

if, the pot was actually legally in one possession, the police would need a warrant?

corpus delicti, is not a legal theory, but has a well founded legal history in thousands of cases. Federal and State - criminal and civil.

dont hate me for telling you the truth.

i dont use any illegal drugs, for the record

 

[CdwJava]

the towing of the car was illegal, w/o the real property owners consent,

Not if it was done pursuant to CVC 22651(h). If done pursuant to CVC 22653, it very well may have been. At worst it means the agency eats the bill for the tow if the authority is not changed to meet the circumstances.

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.

Nope. It would not meet the definition of theft in CA.

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

Might have been .. but, being found in one's car kinda implicates that person. If found in the back seat in the floorboard I can see an easier case for reasonable doubt. If it were found in the ashtray and the car wreaked of marijuana, well ...

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.

And the nice officer would still have you sit in the back of his car in cuffs as he does an inventory of the vehicle pursuant to agency policy and/or practice, pursuant to state statutes, and as permitted by state and federal case law.

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

Hence the reason the state would have to show the person knew or should have known he had no right to travel upon the property. As usual it is the state's burden.

 

[CdwJava]

if, the pot was actually legally in one possession, the police would need a warrant?

What? Why?

That ain't true at all!!

 

[CdwJava]

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.

Of course the OP presents his account of events and it sounds like a goofed up affair. However, rarely is the defendant's account the sole account, and I strongly suspect there is more to it than what he has admitted.

 

[justalayman]

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.

no they can't. The OP was found in possession of the vehicle ergo, everything in the car at that time was considered to be in his possession.

One needs to consider the realities of the law and not just make up crap and claim they understand or even know the law.

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

.it's trespassing. One s before the p.

and intent does not necessarily mean intent to trespass. It can mean simply to have intentionally taken the action which caused one to commit a trespass. Depending on the totality of the facts and the exact statute charged, it could be either one.

did the officer see me drive, then facts not in evidence.

first, this isn't in court yet so your claim is irrelevant. Second, a jury is allowed to come to a conclusion based on the surrounding facts which are: there is a witness to a car being driven. OP was found to be the sole occupant of the vehicle. OP made no claims of phantom drivers.

A jury is allowed to come to a conclusion based on those facts that the OP did in fact drive the vehicle to where it was discovered.

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

what you do or don't do is irrelevant and your claims to do not change the facts.

 

[Dillon]

Not if it was done pursuant to CVC 22651(h). If done pursuant to CVC 22653, it very well may have been. At worst it means the agency eats the bill for the tow if the authority is not changed to meet the circumstances.

sounds good to me

Nope. It would not meet the definition of theft in CA.

Generally, a person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:

Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property; or
Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the lawful custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law

Might have been .. but, being found in one's car kinda implicates that person. If found in the back seat in the floorboard I can see an easier case for reasonable doubt. If it were found in the ashtray and the car wreaked of marijuana, well ...

so, your saying if one carries pot in their car, put it in the back seat, Right?


And the nice officer would still have you sit in the back of his car in cuffs as he does an inventory of the vehicle pursuant to agency policy and/or practice, pursuant to state statutes, and as permitted by state and federal case law.

even if in custody, one is considered innocent until proven quilt, Right?


Hence the reason the state would have to show the person knew or should have known he had no right to travel upon the property. As usual it is the state's burden.

Id like to see that

 

[Dillon]

What? Why?

That ain't true at all!!

get a blacks law dictionary and look up the term:

actual possession

 

[Dillon]

no they can't. The OP was found in possession of the vehicle ergo, everything in the car at that time was considered to be in his possession.

cant i abandon my possessions? cant someone leave their weed in my car without me knowing it?

and intent does not necessarily mean intent to trespass. It can mean simply to have intentionally taken the action which caused one to commit a trespass. Depending on the totality of the facts and the exact statute charged, it could be either one.

its my understanding, I was accidently on an unknown easement, no criminal intent, none at all.

first, this isn't in court yet so your claim is irrelevant. Second, a jury is allowed to come to a conclusion based on the surrounding facts which are: there is a witness to a car being driven. OP was found to be the sole occupant of the vehicle. OP made no claims of phantom drivers.

thats Right, trial by jury. its my understanding the cops came up after the car was stopped and a call was placed after stopped. (not witnessed by cops driving the car)

A jury is allowed to come to a conclusion based on those facts that the OP did in fact drive the vehicle to where it was discovered.

facts not in evidence, yet - no one can testify, who was in the car while so called being driven, he might have been the so called passanger in the car. unless one testifies against themselves, but who would willingly do that?

i dont admit to knowly driving motor vehicle equipment on private property at that time, but thats me.


what you do or don't do is irrelevant and your claims to do not change the facts.

you mean first hand knowledge of factual evidence based on i witness testimony under oath, Right?

 

[justalayman]

cant i abandon my possessions? cant someone leave their weed in my car without me knowing it?

sure but for the purposes at hand, it is then considered to be your pot.

its my understanding, I was accidently on an unknown easement, no criminal intent, none at all.

either your comprehension is seriously lacking or you are intentionally being obtuse. The intent might be as simple as you were not accidentally on the property. If the OP was intentionally where he was, there was an intent. If that is enough to find the OP guilty of the crime charged, I don't know.

thats Right, trial by jury. its my understanding the cops came up after the car was stopped and a call was placed after stopped. (not witnessed by cops driving the car)

what's your point? The OP's guilt or innocence will be determined in a court. It just isn't there yet. The cop actually seeing the OP driving the car is not a requirement to prove the OP guilty. A jury can reach a conclusion based on the facts presented.

fact not in evidence, no one can testify, who was in the car while so called being driven, he might has been the so called passanger in the car.

a jury can reach a conclusion based on facts presented. Unless the OP can convince the jury somebody else was driving the car, the jury can conclude the OP drove the car. Actually, that is not even necessary because the car is not a required element of the crime. It doesn't matter if he was in a car or standing there all by himself, trespassing is trespassing.

you mean factual evidence based on i witness testimony under oath, Right?

No. I mean what you do in your own life has no bearing on what happened to the OP.

 

[justalayman]

get a blacks law dictionary and look up the term:

actual possession

man is that funny. You, some doper lacking in education, trying to educate a cop, who happens to be one of the more educated cops I have ever talked with, on the finer points of the law.

try looking up:

constructive possession

because what is in the car is considered to be yours based on constructive possession.

but regardless, pot being in ones possession and known to the cops would remove the need for a warrant which is directly opposed to your claim.

 

[Dillon]

sure but for the purposes at hand, it is then considered to be your pot.

i am sure people have left their stuff in your car by accident, that you did not know until you found it later

If that is enough to find the OP guilty of the crime charged, I don't know.
either your comprehension is seriously lacking or you are intentionally being obtuse. The intent might be as simple as you were not accidentally on the property. If the OP was intentionally where he was, there was an intent.

i was accidently on an unknown easemet

a jury can reach a conclusion based on facts presented. Unless the OP can convince the jury somebody else was driving the car, the jury can conclude the OP drove the car. Actually, that is not even necessary because the car is not a required element of the crime. It doesn't matter if he was in a car or standing there all by himself, trespassing is trespassing.

The burden is on the DA/the State to convince the jury, U think? not upon me

No. I mean what you do in your own life has no bearing on what happened to the OP.

the OP is responsible for his own actions, Right? What he truthfully says or does not says - he looks like he does not known or should have known he was on private property intentionally, Right that is what he said, Correct?

 

[justalayman]

i am sure people have left their stuff in your car by accident, that you did not know until you found it later

first, no, they haven't but regardless, it makes no difference. If it is in your car, you are considered to have constructive possession of the property and can be charged with possession of such property if possession is a crime.

i was accidently on an unknown easemet

but you intentionally went there.

The burden is on the DA/the State to convince the jury, U think? not upon me

yep and based on the facts presented, it will not be a problem causing the jury to come to that conclusion.

the OP is responsible for his own actions, Right? What he truthfully says or does not says - he looks like he does not known or should have known he was on private property intentionally, Right that is what he said, Correct?

right and he intentionally placing himself where he was is the intent I speak of. Consider this: if I intentionally pull the trigger to a gun but did not intend on shooting the person struck by the bullet, I can still be found guilty for causing a death. My intentional actions are what caused the unintentional result. Just as it is here. He intentionally drove to where he was found so although he did not intentionally trespass, the fact remains he still meant to be where he was. He was not where he was by accident. Being thrown out of a car onto private property would be an unintentional entry to the property. Turning the steering wheel to cause yourself to be on the property makes the entry intentional. The only thing not intentional was the knowing trespass but even that is up for debate given the facts known here.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Of course the OP presents his account of events and it sounds like a goofed up affair. However, rarely is the defendant's account the sole account, and I strongly suspect there is more to it than what he has admitted.

Yeah and lotsa times cops stormtrooper in and trounce.

Its a toss up as to what it was.

 

[Dillon]

first, no, they haven't but regardless, it makes no difference. If it is in your car, you are considered to have constructive possession of the property and can be charged with possession of such property if possession is a crime..

you believe that if it gives you comfort.


paraphrased from bouvirers and blacks law dictionaries

constructive possession means the weed is not really mine, someone else has actual possession.

actual possession means i have exclusive ownership right to the weed.

if i was in court for weed possession charge, I would say, on the witness stand that " its my understanding that i was in fact not in actual or constructive possession of weed at the time of the arrest".

i would not be lying if under oath, would I?

no one could prove that, i was in actual possession of the weed, could they?

i was not in construstive possession of the weed, because Constructive possession is when a man claims to hold in possession of a thing by virtue of some title, without having the actual possession.

i was not in actual possession of the weed because i dont have enjoyment of a thing which a man holds in possession of a thing, in which not only one's own dealing with the thing is physically possible, but every other person's dealing with it is capable of being excluded.


any weed found in my car is intentionally abandoned property for the police to take actual possession of for themselves.

now thats interesting ???

 

[justalayman]

constructive possession means the weed is not really mine, someone else has actual possession.

actual possesson means i have exclusive ownership right to the weed by law.

you might want to go back and read that again because neither statement is correct.