|
If they do NOT own the path then the people who reported this incident can NOT have been trespassing on his property. Remember, if you have a sidewalk outside you home YOU OWN THE SIDEWALK but it is also expected you do NOT have the right to prevent people from walking on it. In most developments the streets and the sometimes the sidewalks are owned by the local Municipality (Generally given to the Local Municipality by the developer of the sub-division) BUT that is ONLY true where some sort of development (Such Development where known as early as the settlement of this country for Urban areas).
If you are in a rural area OR an urban area that just "happened"(i.e. no planning, people just divided up land and built homes on the land and sometimes even built roads) the situation is different, then the owners of property on both sides of a road owns the road to the middle of the road (If that is the border between the two properties, and most time it is). The Government unit whose road that road is only has a right of way, but it is a right of way open to the public. If during construction of the road, the government unit that is building the road finds a rich steam of ore, that ore belongs to the people who own the adjacent property NOT the Government unit whose road it is (Now where Developers deed the roads in a development to a Government unit then the Government unit owns that road bed, so if Rich Ore is found, it belongs to the local Government for the Governmental unit has full title to the land the road is on).
I go into the above for this property sounds like it is in a distant Suburb of Washington DC and it is unclear who owns the land the path is on. If the land is owned by someone else or the local government, then the person who was convicted has no standing to prevent someone from using that path. If this path is a preexisting path (i.e. never built roadway BUT a roadway right of way that still exists) then even of he owned the property he can NOT exclude people from being on it (Just like he can NOT prevent people traveling on a road in front of his house even if his deed says he owns the land the road is on).
Furthermore, in most states, you have basically two types of trespassing, Criminal and Civil. Criminal Trespass falls into two categories, entrance into a building or the "Close" of the Home (Basically the Yard) or entering an open field with No Trespassing signs on it. If the land being trespassed on has no "No Trespassing" sign, is NOT in the "Close" of the house, it is NOT Criminal Trespass. It is NOT criminal to entered someone's else property without that owner's permission UNLESS you know that it is forbidden (thus a sign showing that Trespassing is Forbidden is Required) OR you are entering an area where any reasonable person would view as having been withdrawn from public use (i.e. Locks on a Building or a Fence). If the property is NOT fenced, has no "No Trespassing" signs, is not locked (and that applies to buildings themselves) of by clear and convincing evidence shows that the land is NOT open to the Public then it is NOT criminal trespass to enter such property.
Note, I mentioned Criminal Trespassing in the previous Paragraph. A person entering land that does not have any indication that trespassing if forbidden is committing Civil Trespassing only. The owner of the property can still sue the Civil Trespasser for any damage he did, but if no damage no liability (Or at best nominal liability for example the Owner will win a One Dollar Award). Now if the Civil Trespass does do damage (Such as when a Snowmobile destroys a crop planted in a field) the owner can sue that trespasser for the entire loss the owner suffered but that is all.
I go into the above to show that the issue of trespasser is NOT an apparently a factor in this case. Either the person who he exposed himself to was on someone's else's property OR it was open to the Public (Even if he owned the property the path was on). The only issue is did he DELIBERATELY EXPOSED HIMSELF TO A MINOR. The fact he was in his own house is his defense, it is a weak defense for it is NOT trespassing to LOOK onto someone's else's property. If you want privacy you better make sure what you do is behind a wall someone can NOT see through. The Courts have long ruled that if someone see you doing an illegal act in your home through an open door, that is NOT Trespassing and is perfectly legal evidence (Unless the person seeing the action is "peeping in: i.e. going right up to the window or door and looking where it is clear the owner did NOT want people to look through). Here this man was in a huge window, not an "Open Window" is the classic sense, but a huge one piece window with no curtains. drapes or anything preventing someone from seeing into his home from a Public. He then made sure a minor saw him in the nude. Please note the Judge did NOT say this was an accidental exposure, but a deliberate exposure. I can NOT Stand in the middle of my property and show my nakedness to minors, even if I was on my property and the minors are walking on the public road. The fact he had a pane of Glass between him and the minor does NOT change that situation. In my opinion this conviction will be upheld and he will be told to put clothes on OR curtains on that window.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
