Trespass charges

[Zigner]

That was months ago. And there was no damage. That's not why **I** put 420.


What does this mean: "with the specific intent to interfere with that person's property rights." ?

Wow, whole months ago?

 

[CdwJava]

Well yeah. This one is just junk, abandoned.

Yet still owned by someone.

Hmm. ok. Good thing I got more than 1.

Good thing. It still doesn't give you a pass on any criminal charge, it just means they have a skateboard that they can auction ro give away if your mom never claims it.

I don't cause that many problems.

More than most other kids from the sound of it. That puts you in that 2-3% of kids that cause the citizens problems on a regular basis.

I don't get how they say we vandalized it? The place is all junk. And if we were trespassing we can't own stuff that's been sitting around in there for months (the spray paint).

You do not get to do MORE damage to a place all because it is already damaged! But, you are free to argue the matter at trial. Your attorney (which mom and dad will pay a couple or three thousand dollars for) can cast reasonable doubt on whatever he or she can. I hope your folks are understanding. If you were MY kid, you'd likely be pleading guilty, getting probation, being grounded for a very long time, and working your penalty off doing community service and (for any fines) whatever indentured servitude I could find.

 

[420tt]

it just means they have a skateboard that they can auction ro give away if your mom never claims it.

Can I buy it back?

More than most other kids from the sound of it. That puts you in that 2-3% of kids that cause the citizens problems on a regular basis.

I don't cause citizens problems on a "regular basis".

You do not get to do MORE damage to a place all because it is already damaged!

We didn't damage it. We moved some stuff. It still looks the same.

Can I ask,
What does this mean: "with the specific intent to interfere with that person's property rights." ? - how does someone actually DO that?

Also, does the owner of the building have to want to press trespass charges?

 

[CdwJava]

Can I buy it back?

If they offer it for auction, sure. Wouldn't it be easier to have mom just pick it up?

I don't cause citizens problems on a "regular basis".

Twice is more than most.

We didn't damage it. We moved some stuff. It still looks the same.

Then the state will have a hard time proving vandalism, I suppose.

Can I ask,
What does this mean: "with the specific intent to interfere with that person's property rights." ? - how does someone actually DO that?

Specifically what code section have you been cited for?

You MIGHT be lucky if for PC 602(m) as that section requires more than merely passing through and if the property is not currently considered a residence then even 602.5 would not apply. There might, however, be local codes that can be filed in place of the state Penal Code. Many cities have much simpler ordinances that merely require you stay out of real property where you have no permission to be.

If you have been told to stay away before, then you could be hit with another section.

Also, does the owner of the building have to want to press trespass charges?

Not necessarily. It depends on the code section. If PC 602(m), specifically, no. But, if the property owner wants to let it go, he is perfectly able to tell the DA to drop the matter ... but he'd better be ready for the city to sue him and abate his property if he does! But, as I said, that PC section has other problems that might let you off the hook this time.

 

[420tt]

If they offer it for auction, sure. Wouldn't it be easier to have mom just pick it up?

Ha. Yeah. You know, just in case.

Twice is more than most.

Not really 'regular' though, right? It's not like I go out and harass people all the time. I spend lots of time at my job and stuff. I just was skating this day...

You MIGHT be lucky if for PC 602(m) as that section requires more than merely passing through and if the property is not currently considered a residence then even 602.5 would not apply. There might, however, be local codes that can be filed in place of the state Penal Code. Many cities have much simpler ordinances that merely require you stay out of real property where you have no permission to be.

If you have been told to stay away before, then you could be hit with another section.

Yeap, PC 602 (m) and PC 594 (a), less $400. It's definitely not a residence. When the cops showed up we were inside just skating. How long until you're not 'passing through'?...our wheels were still moving... No, haven't been told to stay away before.
Ordinances would just be a fine right?

But, if the property owner wants to let it go, he is perfectly able to tell the DA to drop the matter ... but he'd better be ready for the city to sue him and abate his property if he does!

Wow, what? The owner didn't call. Cops went by and saw people outside and came in.

 

[CdwJava]

A city ordinance can be either a fine OR up to 6 months in jail - depending on the specific section cited and how the city has it set up.

The police rarely have property owners on scene when they make trespassing arrests for vacant properties. No, they do not always need an owner to complain.

 

[420tt]

I looked at the city ordinances and I don't think there's anything about trespassing.
Do you think we 'occupied' it?

That seems kind of mean to sue someone when they never complained anyway...

 

[CdwJava]

Such a suit would occur only if a landowner allowed a vacant property to become a nuisance and a hazard. A property owner that refused to take reasonable steps to secure his property or deter interlopers could find the property abated. Such properties affect the property values and safety of adjacent properties as it attracts problems, looks like heck, can become a fire hazard and a risk for surrounding properties and the community.

As for whether you occupied it as is referred to in PC 602(m), I would think not - based solely on what you have written here and what I have read of the underlying case law. However, that doesn't mean that the local prosecutor where you are cannot make the case based on what he has.

It would be best to stay off of property that you do not have specific permission to enter. If you do not want to be blamed for damage, then stay away.

 

[420tt]

Such a suit would occur only if a landowner allowed a vacant property to become a nuisance and a hazard. A property owner that refused to take reasonable steps to secure his property or deter interlopers could find the property abated. Such properties affect the property values and safety of adjacent properties as it attracts problems, looks like heck, can become a fire hazard and a risk for surrounding properties and the community.

Oh. I get what you're talking about now.

As for whether you occupied it as is referred to in PC 602(m), I would think not - based solely on what you have written here and what I have read of the underlying case law. However, that doesn't mean that the local prosecutor where you are cannot make the case based on what he has.

It would be best to stay off of property that you do not have specific permission to enter. If you do not want to be blamed for damage, then stay away.

Ok. Thank you for your responses.