My rights were violated

[CdwJava]

I don't buy that for one minute. The joint owner of a property most certainly has the right to grant entrance to the property.

Ownership does not necessarily grant a right to enter. If the OP admitted he hadn't stayed in the residence for months, and, has, in fact, lived eleswhere for the better part of the last few months, it is reasonable to conclude that he doesn't have a right to be there. Maybe if mom were there, too. But, absent an ID with that address on it and a key, if dad said he was not supposed to be there and was willing to sign a citizen's arrest for trespassing if the OP refused to leave, the onus would then be on the father and not the officer.

Ultimately, if it had been me, I would have asked the OP if he was willing to leave. If not, I would have asked the dad if he wanted to have the OP arrested. If yes, well he gets to go to jail ... if not, then I'd be gone. But, the status of the law may be different in GA.

As a note, a key or even an address on ID do not necessarily and by themselves prove a right to make entry. IDs can have old addresses on them and keys can be copied and stolen. If I had never changed my driver's license or turned over a former house key, would that give me the right to enter the house I used to live in in San Diego? Of course not. And a landlord doesn't have the right to enter at will, either. The police are not able to determine the rights of the parties on scene of a dispute like this, so they will tend to look to the explanations and to one party - in this case, the dad - to take action (such as a citizen's arrest) to resolve the matter.

 

[quincy]

I don't buy that for one minute. The joint owner of a property most certainly has the right to grant entrance to the property.

According to the divorce papers, there must be 24 hour notice. It does not appear this required notice was given.

And how WES fits into the divorce of his parents is a question mark. It would help to know his age. Whether he is an adult or a minor can make a difference, as can all sorts of other facts as yet undisclosed.

 

[justalayman]

But aside from all of the ID stuff;


How were the kids rights violated ?

What I see;

A kid was in the house. The acknowledged resident stated kid had no right to be there. Kid objected but if there is nothing to support kids claims, the residents claims are going to be the basis for the cops actions. It even sounds like the cop was willing to allow kid to prove that was his residence but kid refused. Kid was arrested for trespassing and obstruction. I doubt the obstruction will stick but I see no reason the trespassing wouldn't.


So Dave, what rights were violated here?

 

[davew128]

Op said it himself. Mother must give 24 hour notice prior to entry per the divorce. Go back and read the first post.

So does Dad, and there is no indication EITHER was living there.

 

[davew128]

A kid was in the house. The acknowledged resident stated kid had no right to be there.

I don't see where Dad is acknowledged as being the resident anymore than Mom. They BOTH had to provide 24 hours notice which certainly seems to imply NEITHER ONE OF THEM was residing there.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

I don't buy that for one minute. The joint owner of a property most certainly has the right to grant entrance to the property.

As an absolute statement, this is incorrect.

 

[tranquility]

I don't buy that for one minute. The joint owner of a property most certainly has the right to grant entrance to the property.

Not really. Can you think of where the SOLE owner of a property most certainly does NOT have the right to grant entrance to the property?

[Jeopardy theme]

When they don't have legal possession of the property.

Say there is a life estate or a lease or a renter or a sole licensee or if there is a court order, in each case, if the sole owner violated the terms and enters himself he is trespassing. If the owner tells another to enter, it is the owner who can be charged. Your landlord does not have the right to take a bath in your apartment or give the right to his dog groomer. When the TV company contracts for sole possession for filming, the owner does not get to be on set if he wants. (Unless that is part of the contract.) When a person is prohibited by court order from possession of the property absent certain conditions, an owner does not get the right to blow off the court order and enter the property--or allow another to enter in their stead.

 

[justalayman]

So does Dad, and there is no indication EITHER was living there.

For Peres sake Dave;

In the first post op said dad came HOME while op was in the house.

Do you want to bring up any other silly arguments?

And you still haven't said how op's rights were violated

 

[davew128]

For Peres sake Dave;

In the first post op said dad came HOME while op was in the house.

Home is a generic term. The OP didn't say dad LIVED THERE. Yes there IS a difference.

And you still haven't said how op's rights were violated

You mean besides being arrested for obstruction in a state where he isn't compelled to provide identification?

 

[tranquility]

Home is a generic term. The OP didn't say dad LIVED THERE. Yes there IS a difference.

You mean besides being arrested for obstruction in a state where he isn't compelled to provide identification?

The refusal to do so is considered another factor towards making the detention legal.

M*a*r*t*i*n* v. State, 662 SE 2d 185 - Ga: Court of Appeals 2008

*188 The State concedes, and we agree, that the contact became a second-tier encounter when Deputy Weaver instructed ****** to remain where he was and called for assistance. A second-tier encounter requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.[7] Here, Deputy Weaver had reasonable, articulable suspicion that ****** had caused a noise violation, as there was loud music coming from ******'s vehicle and the vehicle matched the description of the vehicle about which a complaint had been registered.[8] ******'s refusal to provide identification added another basis for the officer's suspicion.[9] Additionally, Deputy Weaver's personal observation of "extremely loud" music, ******'s apparently intoxicated condition, and the 12-pack of beer in the vehicle were sufficient to support reasonable suspicion of both a noise violation and public drunkenness.[10] We thus conclude that ****** was not illegally detained.[11]

In our case the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion the OP was trespassing based on the father's statement. The inconclusive answers given by the OP to the officer increased that suspicion. The refusal to provide identification added another basis for the officer's suspicion. The OP was not illegally detained.

(b) ****** also contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction for obstructing a police officer. "[A] person who knowingly or willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties" is guilty of obstructing a police officer.[24] And "`[w]hether the actions of a defendant actually had the effect of hindering or impeding the officer is a decision for the trier of fact.'"[25] ****** claims that he "did nothing more than ask one question of each deputy while . . . assert[ing] he was on private property" and that he fully complied with Sergeant Hite's command to exit his vehicle. ****** ignores, however, the officers' testimony that he never produced his driver's license, only exited his vehicle after repeated requests, had one hand clenched in a fist and a beer in the other, was "agitated and aggressive," refused to put down the beer, threatened to fight with Sergeant Hite using "continuous profanity," and splashed beer on the sergeant.[26] Thus, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find ****** guilty of obstructing a police officer.[27]

While the OP did not do all those things, I suspect he did some of them. If that is obstruction is for a fact-finder to decide. Arrested for obstruction and trespassing are both with probable cause. Again, as to if the OP is guilty is something we won't be able to decide here.

 

[justalayman]

Home is a generic term. The OP didn't say dad LIVED THERE. Yes there IS a difference.

You mean besides being arrested for obstruction in a state where he isn't compelled to provide identification?

he was arrested for trespassing as well. Since the actions taken to arrest for obstruction were no greater than what was allowed to arrest for trespass there were no violations of his rights.