Maybe it’s because she’s a heckler, and I’m from a rowdy city. Maybe it’s because I’m a fan of defiant trespassing. Maybe it’s because she’s got something important to say. But I’m not happy about police response to a woman’s behavior at the Laura Bush speech Thursday.
Can someone out there define “defiant trespass” in New Jersey law?
Categories: Election 2004, In the News
1:04 am | 8 comments
September 18th, 2004 at 3:59 pm
I think she is charged under 2C:18-3b which states:
b. Defiant trespasser. A person commits a petty disorderly persons offense
if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or
remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to
the attention of intruders; or
(3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders.
Here is the entire NJ Defiant Trespass law:
The following is the law on Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant
trespasser; peering into dwelling places; defenses in New Jersey with all
amendments as of April, 2004:
2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant trespasser; peering into
dwelling places; defenses
2C:18-3. a. Unlicensed entry of structures. A person commits an offense
if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or
surreptitiously remains in any research facility, structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof. An offense under this subsection is a
crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in a school or on school
property. The offense is a crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in
a dwelling. An offense under this section is a crime of the fourth degree
if it is committed in a research facility. Otherwise it is a disorderly
persons offense.
b. Defiant trespasser. A person commits a petty disorderly persons offense
if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or
remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to
the attention of intruders; or
(3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders.
c. Peering into windows or other openings of dwelling places. A person
commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or
privileged to do so, he peers into a window or other opening of a dwelling
or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation for the purpose of
invading the privacy of another person and under circumstances in which a
reasonable person in the dwelling or other structure would not expect to be
observed.
d. Defenses. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) A structure involved in an offense under subsection a. was abandoned;
(2) The structure was at the time open to members of the public and the
actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining
in the structure; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the structure, or other
person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter
or remain, or, in the case of subsection c. of this section, to peer.
September 18th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Ask a lawyer if they have a leg to stand on to make the charge stick based on the incident and the law… but this is the statute being used.
September 18th, 2004 at 4:07 pm
she had a ticket, I believe.
September 18th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
but…i think…and this is where i suggest asking a lawyer… she had a ticket and she had the right to enter the building and to wear her shirt, but under the law as posed above, I think they can charge her because she disrupted the event… so, if it is posted on the ticket that outbursts are forbidden, she would be subject to prosecution.
September 18th, 2004 at 4:17 pm
and a lawyer friend of mine just emailed me and said that if it were posted anywhere within the building, or by defnition within the contract with the building, all applicable NJ laws are to be followed by the management company… yada yada yada… the individual is subject to fine and punsihment.
between you and I, it will be plead out or dropped but apparently this same friend sent me a link to a defense lawyer site… I guess Jersey is tough on this charge:
http://www.njlaws.com/defiant_trespass.htm
What’s up with this law, josh?
September 18th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
A ticket can’t make things “illegal” as such… it, at best, represents a contract with the seller of the ticket. As such, it would be a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
I believe, based on reading this, that the logic behind the charge would be that she was asked to leave and refused. The question is whether they had a right to ask her to leave (especially if the ticket had no such clause on it or if the clause is unenforceable for some other reason).
Regardless, it’s always interesting to see how the Bush campaign handles dissent in their midst as opposed to Kerry’s campaign, which has had its share of hecklers.
September 18th, 2004 at 6:33 pm
I meant to add that I think her options for defense are weak and the charges are legit from where I stand. IANAL and all that, of course.
It’s just pretty sad that the organizers would press charges.
September 19th, 2004 at 11:28 pm
you will be happy to hear that the defiant trespass charges have been dropped:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-09172004-367614.html