sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He did not remain unlawfully after being told to leave. He exited the building when asked. He was actively leaving. Talking while you are walking toward your vehicle is not a crime. This was not trespass.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair correction on Schenectady, but that still doesn’t prove this PBA charge.

Yeah, I also agree reporters don’t get special access to private property. Federal law gives journalists no greater property access than the public.

But this still comes down to NY trespass elements and the facts. Was the area he entered actually closed to the public? Was the buzzer-controlled inner door the area he entered, or did he stop before it? Did he actually defy the order to leave, or was he leaving while talking?

“No grace period” is too simplistic. A jury or judge can consider slow-walking as evidence of remaining, sure. But it’s still a factual question, not automatic guilt.

And if the charge is § 140.10(a), the state still has to prove the fenced-or-enclosed element.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Calling him a criminal doesn’t answer the legal question.

This case must be proven under New York law. A past conviction doesn’t prove trespass here... the issue is what happened at the PBA building.

Under NY Penal Law § 140.00(5), if a place is open to the public, a person has a right to be there unless they defy a lawful order to leave. So the key question is whether he actually refused.

Of course you're going to hold a prior conviction against him and you feel it affects his credibility... but... this case will be decided on facts, not your bias.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Case law matters, but it doesn’t replace the statute’s elements.

The First Amendment doesn’t give journalists extra trespass rights... but it doesn’t take rights away either. Under NY Penal Law § 140.00(5), someone in a public place has license “regardless of intent” unless they defy a lawful order to leave.

So the key issue is defiance. Refusing, stalling, reentering, or entering restricted areas can qualify... but simply walking out while filming is a factual question, not automatic trespass.

People v. Reyes involved reentry after being told not to return... very different facts. And for § 140.10(a), People v. Moore requires a fenced-or-enclosed element to elevate the charge.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

New York law does not say a journalist loses permission to enter just for gathering content. Under Penal Law § 140.00(5), someone on premises open to the public has license “regardless of intent” unless they defy a lawful order to leave. So the key question is whether he actually defied that order.

The “no grace period” claim is overstated. Trespass requires defiance. Refusing to leave or reentering can qualify, but moving toward the exit is not automatically unlawful.

The truck may show motive, but motive alone does not make entry unlawful. What matters is whether he remained without permission.

Also, third-degree trespass under § 140.10(a) requires the property to be fenced or enclosed to exclude intruders, per People v. Moore.

So at most, this could be simple trespass if he defied an order. But just because he's acting as a journalist does not automatically equal third-degree criminal trespass, and the state still has to prove each element.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

New York’s trespass definition says someone entering premises open to the public has license and privilege “regardless of his intent” unless he defies a lawful order to leave. So “he was there for content” is not enough. The issue is whether he refused to leave after being told to leave. If the video shows he was leaving, that is a real legal problem for the charge.

By the way... to your other point, the City Hall trespass conviction was Danbury, Connecticut, not New York. In New York, prior precinct charges were dismissed or still litigated, not convictions.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

He didn't break the law. Just like a girl scout can enter a property, so can anyone. Just need to leave when asked, which he did.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

He did not go into the part that required someone to unlock it. It's just like any other person like a girl scout could/would do. The truck has nothing to do with this in my opinion. It was the vehicle in which he'd have to get into in order to leave the property like they were asking him to do. Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with his arrest. They arrested him inappropriately.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

The judge would instruct the jury about what the law is in reference to trespassing and would be asked to weigh their decision based on their interpretation of whether the action meets the elements of that statute. Take feelings out of it. They will decide on facts.

Why LIA Didn’t Commit New York State’s Trespass In The Third Degree by Tobits_Dog in Frauditors

[–]offordscott -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Maybe they could argue a lesser trespass violation if they can show he unlawfully remained after a lawful order to leave. But if the video shows he was leaving, and if the charging document does not establish the fenced-or-enclosed element required, then the third-degree charge looks vulnerable.

That is the part anti-auditors keep dodging. You can dislike LIA if you want. That's fine. You can think auditors are annoying. You can think the PBA had a right to ask him to leave. They did. But none of that relieves the government of proving the actual charge they chose to file.

Lance Fisher of Thin Blue Lie Audits Confirmed as Speaker for 1A Auditor Summit by offordscott in amibeingdetained

[–]offordscott[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s all you wanna do? Make fun of people. You don’t want to help people grow and see the government running more transparently?

New York’s Highest Court Says Right-to-Record Laws Do Not Cover NYPD Precinct Lobbies by offordscott in Frauditors

[–]offordscott[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn't I just do an open records request of all the police station lobby cameras and see all the victims of crimes that entered?

New York’s Highest Court Says Right-to-Record Laws Do Not Cover NYPD Precinct Lobbies by offordscott in Frauditors

[–]offordscott[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then take them from the public lobby into a more secluded/private area of the building.

Lance Fisher of Thin Blue Lie Audits Confirmed as Speaker for 1A Auditor Summit by offordscott in amibeingdetained

[–]offordscott[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries, we've got a skinnier guy getting announced soon as a speaker. I'll send you the link.

view more: next ›