Enlighten me on corner hopping

[James Riley]

The "Right of Access" pertaining to private property is part of what is known as the Bundle of Rights. It is not an issue of timing or "grandfathering" as to whether an access easement would be granted as the Bundle of Rights always existed. There is no such claim as, "You can't gain an easement across my property to your property because I owned my property before the easement laws went into effect." Access is granted via the Possession, Control, and Quiet Enjoyment sections. One of the Rights referenced is known as Exclusion, which states you can exclude people from your property, but exceptions to that include search warrants and easements (which obviously apply here).

The Bundle of Rights is analogous to the unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. The DofI didn't grant those rights, they already existed from our Creator. The Bundle of Rights to Real Property has been deemed to always have existed and will always exist unless contracted away (such as a lease agreement temporarily transferring the Right of Possession to the lessee or dispositions involving the retaining of mineral rights).

I'm not optimistic somebody could apply the Right of Access to public land, but it would be an interesting argument and would likely depend on the Court in which it was argued. So far, it doesn't sound like anybody has attempted that argument so we don't know. It also sounds like nobody has been successfully prosecuted for corner jumping either. And, in fact, the most on-point case so far ended up in corner jumping being upheld in that specific county in Wyoming. There is a lot of gray area in this and likely neither side wants to risk losing enough to take it to court and find out.

You are citing the Declaration of Independence? LOL! That is not a law or a Constitution and has no force or affect. Nor does it constitute common law, which is unique to jurisdiction, set forth in case law, and subordinate to the Constitution, particularly the 5th Amendment in this case. The bundle of rights? Talk about sounding like Bundy.

Interesting read, penned after the Wyoming case, which was limited to F&G and had nothing to do with trespass: http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_0848ffe6-200c-11e1-8b59-001871e3ce6c.html Edited to add, I posted this before seeing RobG had already posted it.

P.S. The ability to force an easement in Wyoming is provided by Statute/Constitution, not common law.

 

[grizzly_]

I said it's analogous to the DofI. The point being that the Bundle of Rights (which is a legal term) exists like the Rights cited in the DofI.

You have some homework to do on real estate law if you think there's any question add to the legality of the Bundle of Rights I referenced. It's very much settled law.

PS. The article referenced above is an administrative rule and recommendation. Not a legally binding judicial ruling.

 

[WapitiBob]

The reality of the matter is that in Wyoming, Game dept staff have been directed to not cite for corner crossing and the DA's in several counties will not prosecute if a Deputy writes a citation. Make a 60 second phone call, get the info for yourself, and go hunt. There are now multiple landowners who know their exclusive use of public land has come to an end.

 

[James Riley]

I said it's analogous to the DofI. The point being that the Bundle of Rights (which is a legal term) exists like the Rights cited in the DofI.

You have some homework to do on real estate law if you think there's any question add to the legality of the Bundle of Rights I referenced. It's very much settled law.

PS. The article referenced above is an administrative rule and recommendation. Not a legally binding judicial ruling.

In my short ten years of practicing law out west I had some exposure to real property/real estate. The "Bundle of Rights" is generic law school stuff, parts of which are set forth in what is known as "common law". Common Law is law, but the Bundle of Rights is NOT law and they don't exist as some universally applicable set of rights or duties across jurisdictions. They are more an explanation of general principles and they do not constitute settle law or anything close to it. Also, as already stated, they (Common Law principles) are subordinate to statutes and the Constitution.

 

[James Riley]

There are now multiple landowners who know their exclusive use of public land has come to an end.

Even if the authorities have abdicated their obligations under the law, there is still civil action for trespass and private land owners, entitled to exclusion, can pursue that avenue if they choose.

I get your point though, it's like pot in Colorado. It's still a federal crime but if Obama tells his people to stand down, the F the law, right?

 

[teamhoyt]

In mt if the private land is not posted you can enter it legally as long as you're not hunting. Which in the case of corner crossing there is no intent to do so. For sure in this instance you couldn't be charged civilly. If the private land is posted then we get into the current discussion. For the first example I couldn't see it being an issue

 

[James Riley]

In mt if the private land is not posted you can enter it legally as long as you're not hunting.

Interesting. It is my understanding that most states have the posting requirement but the result is the opposite: If not posted then you *can* enter to hunt, but you can't enter if not hunting. It's been a while but I think that was the case. Colorado and Wyoming do not have a posting requirement. I'm not sure about Wyoming but I think in Colorado the burden is upon the non-owner to find out and know where the boundaries are.

Here's a Duke Law Review article on the posting thing. Not sure how good it is. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=dlj

Open that and do a search for your state. Montana may require written permission. ???

 

[grizzly_]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[James Riley]

The problem is you lost all credibility with declarative statements about what is and is not legal with no room for other interpretation. Once you make a declarative statement like that you leave yourself open to be proved wrong with a single ruling that differs from your own statement, such as the Cantor ruling.

Once that ruling was introduced into the conversation you said a sitting Circuit Court Judge "sh!t on the Constitution" simply by issuing a ruling contrary to your narrow belief.

I've never once met an attorney that would state with such certainty the law of the land with no precedent to back it. I think we've exhausted this conversation unless somebody has something new to add.

You are not qualified to vet my credibility. You've stepped on your crank repeatedly and don't even know it. And you do so here again. As I taught you earlier, Cantor proved my point. It was not based on criminal trespass, but was limited to F&G law with a mens rea requirement unrelated to trespass. The ruling (which, as a circuit court ruling holds little or no precedent by the way) was offered here for the proposition that corner crossing was not trespass and was legal. My response was if that were true then yes, the judge shit on the Constitution and the AG lacked integrity for opining that corner crossing was okay. However, once the merits of the decision were offered, making my point, it stood distinguished. The Judge in Cantor and the AG need not redeem themselves from your mistake. They had already distinguished the point for you.

So it was you (or others; quite frankly I don't pay much attention to who said what but focus more on what was said) that screwed up by citing Cantor for a proposition that it had nothing to do with. Again, you stand corrected but probably don't even know it.

My precedent is all those thousands of cases related to criminal trespass and civil trespass. You and your ilk keep trying to distinguish corner hopping from all that law, but you failed to cite a single case in support of your position. You tried and failed to shoe-horn Cantor into that but Cantor was off point by a mile.

 

[schmalts]

The reality of the matter is that in Wyoming, Game dept staff have been directed to not cite for corner crossing and the DA's in several counties will not prosecute if a Deputy writes a citation. Make a 60 second phone call, get the info for yourself, and go hunt. There are now multiple landowners who know their exclusive use of public land has come to an end.

In Wisconsin a DNR warden will not write a ticket for trespassing, he will tell you that you need to call the police or sheriff.

 

[grizzly_]

I have two guys that work full- time for me as practicing attorneys. What do you want to bet that at least one of them thinks your legal opinion is completely flawed?

I've never met an attorney that believed all his statements were gospel and the only valid opinion. Franky, it seems like an easy way to be proven wrong.

I, however, don't care to waste their time proving somebody wrong that continues to make dismissive and declarative statements without legal precedent. It would serve no purpose. Carry on.

 

[James Riley]

I have two guys that work full- time for me as practicing attorneys. What do you want to bet that at least one of them thinks your legal opinion is completely flawed?

I've never met an attorney that believed all his statements were gospel and the only valid opinion. Franky, it seems like an easy way to be proven wrong.

I, however, don't care to waste their time proving somebody wrong that continues to make dismissive and declarative statements without legal precedent. It would serve no purpose. Carry on.

Go ahead and ask them. Hopefully they charge you. With me, you get what you paid for. Had you been paying me, you might have received more than dismissive, declarative hornbook law from the first year of law school. The only case cited was so easily distinguished that I did it in advance before the actual language was offered up.

P.S. I would almost guarantee you that at least one of them would think my argument is flawed. Perhaps you haven't heard: Any town so small it can't support a single attorney can easily support two. LOL! In fact, if your two attorney's are worth a shit, they will disagree with each other.

 

[300stw]

i guess in all this argument with the attorneys present where is the actual law and how is it written that actual describes, defines, corner crossing is illegal, not some defacto if you did x then your guilty of y argument,

i asked the warden yesterday and he couldnt provide it to me

 

[James Riley]

i guess in all this argument with the attorneys present where is the actual law and how is it written that actual describes, defines, corner crossing is illegal, not some defacto if you did x then your guilty of y argument,

i asked the warden yesterday and he couldnt provide it to me

Universal Citation: WY Stat § 6-3-303 (1997 through Reg Sess)
(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass. For purposes of this section, notice is given by:

(i) Personal communication to the person by the owner or occupant, or his agent, or by a peace officer; or

(ii) Posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.

(b) Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both.

(c) This section does not supersede W.S. 1-21-1003.

Here is how it would be read for the corner hopping:

(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters [. . . ] in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, . . .

If he is crossing at a corner then he knows he will have to do so because it would be impossible not to. Apparently that is also the position of the federal government in reading Wyoming's law. That is their position and I think it is a sound legal one. Just wait until the right monied land owner wants to prefer charges and you can bet the local DA will also agree.

 

[RobG]

Okay... we are entering episode II of Lawyers in Love, where they argue whether or not the landowner whose corner you hopped can stop you from hunting the section you got to. If he does, can he be charged with hunter harassment? I think the question reduces down to whether or not you are "lawfully taking a wild animal" when you are on public land that you committed a civil trespass to get to.

Summary: This law represents Montana's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another, which includes disturbing a wild animal by engaging in actions or the placement of objects/substances to prevent its taking. This section does not prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment.

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-215.htm

 

[300stw]

how about the montana statute unless i misread this as a wyoming statute, or does this statute apply to all states, WY stat 6-3-303 is why i wonder

 

[James Riley]

how about the montana statute unless i misread this as a wyoming statute, or does this statute apply to all states, WY stat 6-3-303 is why i wonder

That was just the Wyoming statute. But criminal trespass statutes are pretty similar from state to state. You can google it for any state you want. Just put in Montana Criminal Trespass Statute and see if it works.

 

[James Riley]

Okay... we are entering episode II of Lawyers in Love, where they argue whether or not the landowner whose corner you hopped can stop you from hunting the section you got to. If he does, can he be charged with hunter harassment? I think the question reduces down to whether or not you are "lawfully taking a wild animal" when you are on public land that you committed a civil trespass to get to.


http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/6/87-6-215.htm

I don't think he can stop you unless he tries to execute a citizens arrest for criminal trespass. Otherwise, he'd just have to sue you civilly or see if he could find a cop. In some states, when a cop refuses to issue a citation you can use the cop to issue it yourself: you fill it out, etc. The cop doesn't have to put his name on it but he must aid. This is not hunter harassment. You don't have to let a person continue an otherwise legal activity if you are citing them or arresting them lawfully. Once you are on the public land he could stand at his corner without touching the public land physically prevent you from leaving. If he sees you on the way in, he could do likewise and prevent you from entering. After all, you'd have to batter him to get by.

 

[RobG]

James - if I read Fin correctly, and he has researched this a lot, at least in Montana this seems to certainly be a civil, not criminal trespass, issue.

 

[James Riley]

James - if I read Fin correctly, and he has researched this a lot, at least in Montana this seems to certainly be a civil, not criminal trespass, issue.

Could be. Here's what I find for Montana: "45-6-203. Criminal trespass to property. (1) Except as provided in 15-7-139, 70-16-111, and 76-13-116, a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly:
(a) enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure; or
(b) enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of criminal trespass to property shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 6 months, or both.
(3) A person convicted of or who forfeits bond or bail for committing an act of criminal trespass involving property owned or administered by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks or while hunting, fishing, or trapping may be subject to revocation of the person's privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for up to 24 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture."

I would read it thus: "45-6-203. Criminal trespass to property. (1) . . . a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly: . . .
(b) enters . . . unlawfully in . . . the premises of another."

Seems pretty clear to me. I did not research the itemized exceptions.

P.S. I went and read the itemized exceptions. They are for land surveyors, fire response people and appraisers. There is not exception for corner hopping. Legislative listing of exceptions is often viewed as an intent that everything not excepted is covered. In this case, that would be corner crossing.