Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[VikingsGuy]

The truth is that generally, these cases are about a landowner trying to maintain an exclusive FINANCIAL interest in publicly owned land, at the expense of other owners of that public land.

Spot on! At some point the public, courts and legislatures are going to figure this out and this "law" will change.

 

[Sytes]

Done. Go get 'em.

RMEF, DU, TPL, etc have legal teams for each and every land acquisition, etc w/o having to set up gofundme pages for each parcel or estate transfer. It's incorporated into dues / donations. Is this the same with BHA? I'm paying to support what aspect? Offset legal expenses BHA incurs? Or is BHA the platform to raise funds though not funded via dues/donations to legally represent issues that seem to be in BHA crosshairs?

What is my donation going towards?

 

[TheJason]

To that end, the Wyoming Chapter of BHA has set up this Gofundme page to help pay for legal representation for these four hunters.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I agree….

But I mean, I imagine if the likes of onX - or any other bigger org or company - is going to get involved theyre probably going to do so in a manner that doesn’t involve gofundme.

But I’d still like to start seeing some interest in this by somebody other than BHA

Or maybe no big name leans in on behalf of the 4 public land owners charged with walking on their own damn land, and we win with 1000 people chipping in $20 apiece. Fine by me.

 

[BJV3]

Something I’ve always wondered is if you walk along a border fence where you are on the public side and you extend your hand and arm across the fence to the private side and walked 3’ or hundreds of yards or even miles would the landowner that is suing for corner crossing prosecute the trespasser for this act as well? My guess is definitely not. Therefore could it be used as an argument in court that the landowner is only concerned with the trespasser accessing public land that the landowner thinks he can control access to? Does that make any sense?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Something I’ve always wondered is if you walk along a border fence where you are on the public side and you extend your hand and arm across the fence to the private side and walked 3’ or hundreds of yards or even miles would the landowner that is suing for corner crossing prosecute the trespasser for this act as well? My guess is definitely not. Therefore could it be used as an argument in court that the landowner is only concerned with the trespasser accessing public land that the landowner thinks he can control access to? Does that make any sense?

Someone mentioned in a different thread cutting off arms with a chainsaw for doing this exact thing. I think he would prosecute.

 

[TheJason]

Someone mentioned in a different thread cutting off arms with a chainsaw for doing this exact thing. I think he would prosecute.

That dude also got banned. Twice.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

That dude also got banned. Twice.

I can't keep up

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm curious if/how the court would consider how a reasonable, logical person would look at the map and make a decision.

For example, the first time I hunted out West (a while ago now, well beyond the statute of limitations) I corner crossed because it never entered my early 20's mind that it could possibly be wrong. There were no fences, miles from manmade structures of any kind, I found the corner marker, stepped over it, never stepped on private land. I was hunting solo, didn't see any other hunters, or take any game that day. I was floored when later that week a friend told me what I'd done wasn't "legal".

Ignorance of a law is almost never a defense in court. In most cases, the "intent" needed for legal violations is the intent to carry out the act (i.e., stepping over a corner), not an intent to commit an unlawful act. Sheriffs and DAs are often the ones who use such discretion on when to cite, arrest, charge or prosecute.

 

[VikingsGuy]

so since civics class was like... a long time ago, and considering that it wouldn't have even covered a topic like this... someone help me out here:

let's run the hypothetical: case dismissed, private property interests throw the most massive and petty tantrum seen in the history of God's green earth, crawl on their hands and knees to the wyoming legislature to beg for clarity on corner cross with minimum financial penalty for a criminal trespass violation. the legislature coddles their poor little private property interests and revises statute.

okay, so then let's say the wyoming legislature ignored lobbyist and citizen concerns that this violates due process and passed it anyway.

so, here in colorado i believe the new red flag laws violate due process, so did nearly all of our county sheriffs and i'm sure many lobbyists, yet here we are, approaching year 2 of the law.

on one hand, if the state constitution says something is legal, then it's the law, and it stands, we have to move on, and the only hope is changing state law again. but on the other hand not if it violates federal law right? wouldn't the only recourse then be to get into a federal court where a judge can say your states petty little cry baby private interest law actually violates federal law and your citizens right to due process?

sounds like a long ass shot no?

or where am i missing key points?

hypothetical over

my point being, i feel like if the wyoming legislature decides to invoke minimum penalties for criminal trespass (and certainly, maybe, that in and of itself is a long shot) then so it will be, and little will be able to be done to change that (or prevent) if that's what they want to do, whether or not it seems to violate due process. that is, until the tide of the legislature turns again and decides it is indeed a petty cry baby private interest law that is unreasonable and unjust for it's citizens.

@VikingsGuy ? anyone? @Big Fin , @BuzzH ? @Ben Lamb ?

Lot's to unpack here. I will reiterate two thoughts - I don't think minimum damages are a violation of due process, and this gets fixed when the public cares enough to demand their legislators address the absurdity of an esoteric legal theory that defies common sense, unjustly enriches a very small part of the population and unreasonably denies millions lawful access to public lands.

 

[VikingsGuy]

As long as no one stepped on the (Complainant's) private property, this should NOT be ruled as trespassing. The complainant is clearly trying to block access to publicly owned lands.

In most locales trespass law considers the air space above one's property to be within that property. Modern aviation narrowed that to approx. 50ft above one's property. As such, in those jurisdictions, geometry does not allow for corner crossing that does not result in trespass.

 

[WapitiBob]

Something I’ve always wondered is if you walk along a border fence where you are on the public side and you extend your hand and arm across the fence to the private side and walked 3’ or hundreds of yards or even miles would the landowner that is suing for corner crossing prosecute the trespasser for this act as well? My guess is definitely not. Therefore could it be used as an argument in court that the landowner is only concerned with the trespasser accessing public land that the landowner thinks he can control access to? Does that make any sense?

Past Attorney General's opinion, draw your own conclusion.




and to muddy the water further

https://www.wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-04Trespass-CornerCrossing.pdf

 

[VikingsGuy]

Something I’ve always wondered is if you walk along a border fence where you are on the public side and you extend your hand and arm across the fence to the private side and walked 3’ or hundreds of yards or even miles would the landowner that is suing for corner crossing prosecute the trespasser for this act as well? My guess is definitely not. Therefore could it be used as an argument in court that the landowner is only concerned with the trespasser accessing public land that the landowner thinks he can control access to? Does that make any sense?

In most instances, private property owners are allowed to determine when and if to enforce their rights. Ignoring one action and prosecuting another is not only legal but common. But of course if they do so for too long concepts of estoppel, adverse possession, and constructive easements can creep into the discussion.

 

[cahunter805]

In most locales trespass law considers the air space above one's property to be within that property. Modern aviation narrowed that to approx. 50ft above one's property. As such, in those jurisdictions, geometry does not allow for corner crossing that does not result in trespass.

What if they used a ladder taller than 50ft?

 

[mtmiller]

Past Attorney General's opinion, draw your own conclusion.

Monster Muleys? Really?

 

[338win]

In most locales trespass law considers the air space above one's property to be within that property. Modern aviation narrowed that to approx. 50ft above one's property. As such, in those jurisdictions, geometry does not allow for corner crossing that does not result in trespass.

Can you cite the source regarding aviation and 50 feet because I have never seen it referenced in any FAR or heard any crusty hangar lawyers reference anything similar.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Can you cite the source regarding aviation and 50 feet because I have never seen it referenced in any FAR or heard any crusty hangar lawyers reference anything similar.

Typo - 500. SCOTUS in US v Causby declined to set a general rule but in that case, they said for sure above 500 ft is beyond land owners rights. But the real test is, "air space above the land that could reasonably be used from the land. Specific cases vary.

[previously discussed this in: https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/corner-crossing.309313/post-3268429]

 

[TOGIE]

Lot's to unpack here. I will reiterate two thoughts - I don't think minimum damages are a violation of due process, and this gets fixed when the public cares enough to demand their legislators address the absurdity of an esoteric legal theory that defies common sense, unjustly enriches a very small part of the population and unreasonably denies millions lawful access to public lands.

And that’s basically what I was trying to get at in my hypothetical.

That I really wasn’t sure that minimum fines inherently violate any sort of due process. Especially in that, if the legislature says so then it is so, I guess in the most simplistic sense.

Whether or not the legislature would say so is another matter entirely it seems like.

 

[JM77]

"...enters or remains on or in the land or premises..." tells me land needs a statutory definition to include air space, which there is not. The statute should be interpreted as written.

When floating down a Wyoming river, statute specifies you cannot wade or anchor on the bottom if it is deeded land. Apparently, somewhere there is also a release for river floaters as to trespassing in the air space above the water?

 

[seeth07]

"...enters or remains on or in the land or premises..." tells me land needs a statutory definition to include air space, which there is not. The statute should be interpreted as written.

When floating down a Wyoming river, statute specifies you cannot wade or anchor on the bottom if it is deeded land. Apparently, somewhere there is also a release for river floaters as to trespassing in the air space above the water?

I already posted the Wyoming statute that defines ownership of air above property? Se post 60.

What a valid, super valid point about floaters. Never thought of that before, it's good.