Excuse me, but when did GPS become a valid legal identifier of a property?

[RTFirefly]

@Tequila_Party

Why is it necessary to argue from a legal standpoint every single time? Do lawyers never lay aside their profession long enough to discuss things like a layperson? It can be equally frustrating for everyone else to be rules lawyered in every conversation around here.

The question of whether the bank ought to be charged with criminal trespass under the law as it exists is unavoidably a legal question. And that seems to be the main thread of the debate right now. So we’re discussing the law.

If we were discussing whether the law ought to be such that the bank had committed a crime by doing what it did, that would not depend on the existing statutes. While the lawyers might have some extra insight into the possible repercussions of a different set of laws, other than that a discussion like that should induce them to discuss things like a layperson, IMHO.

But when we’re talking about the applicability of actual laws, the most I think one can reasonably expect in the way of a lawyer discussing things like a layperson is that they should be able to see when the law doesn’t make a lot of sense.

But it’s still the law.

[Bricker]

OK.

Perhaps the single most fundamental principle in criminal law is the concept of the guilty mind. The penal code exists to punish those who commit crimes. As a society, we have determined that we can and should punish people when they intend to commit a crime, and follow that intention by actually committing the crime. So the state of mind one has at the moment one commits a putatively criminal act is very important – so much so that even when the criminal law does not include phrases like “knowingly” or “intentionally,” courts will read those requirements into the law in order to avoid punishing innocent mistakes, and even avoid punishing ordinary negligent mistakes. This is called a scienter requirement.

Very rarely, because of the difficulty in proving the guilty mind and the seriousness of the action, we allow certain crimes to have very weak, or no, scienter requirement. Statutory rape is an example of this – the requirement to prove what the adult knew or should have known frustrates the prosecution of these cases, and the major goal is the elimination of sexual contact between adults and those under the age of majority in any event, so that class of crime often has a very weak scienter requirement: we don’t care how reasonable your belief was; the act of sex with the underage partner is criminal, period.

In the present case, so far as I can tell, no one believes that the cleaning crew intended to break into a house that they were not authorized to be in. They foolishly relied on the GPS to tell them where the correct house was, yes. But as a general rule, the law doesn’t criminalize stupidity. It doesn’t transform their actions into criminal recklessness, either.

So that’s where it sits. The civil law of course allows the homeowner to recover damages from the foolish mistakes of the bank, but the criminal law doesn’t act against merely foolish mistakes.

And I’m fine with that. The civil law provides the right remedy here. These people do not deserve to go to prison. They deserve to pay cash to the person they damaged through their error.

[Hamlet]

@RTFirefly

Sorry to pick on you, Hamlet, but this is just such a perfect example of why people hate lawyers.

What? People hate lawyers? First I’m hearing about it.

@RTFirelfly

An address clearly posted on the mailbox, or on or by the door, is how we indicate to people that if they’ve got business at this address, then this is the right place, and if their business is at some other address, then they’re at the wrong place. How that fails to be sufficient posting to let someone with no right or authorization to enter that house that they have no right or authorization to enter that house, is beyond me.

That’s because you and people like you, are unable to, or refuse to, engage in actual analysis of the issue, relying rather on emotion, outrage, and misunderstandings about the purpose and reach of criminal law. Lawyers are usually much more able to understand the separation between the criminal law, civil law, and, for lack of a more inclusive word, non-law. The constant conflating of the three, where people decide that their emotions and outrage must mean that a crime had to have been committed, is what is so annoying about trying to explain the law to people who have no interest in education themselves whatsoever.

Again, the fact there are no criminal charges available, does not mean there is no remedy to the homeowner. There is a whole another facet of the legal system that is available for those things that don’t arise to the level of crime. That is where these problems have been solved for centuries.

@RTFirefly

You guys inhabit an alternate universe.

No, we’re just better able to recognize the separation between legal discussions and emotional discussions. In this thread alone, I’ve had to explain that I’m discussing the law and not the rightness or wrongness of the action at least 5 times, yet there are people like you who steadfastly continue to wallow in their ignorance. Congrats.

@RTFirelfly

And to take possession of a property you’ve never been to before, without checking the clearly posted address to see if it’s really the property you have the rights to before you enter, is reckless entrance by any common-sense standard I can think of.

There is an argument that not checking the address is “reckless”, but that still doesn’t mean a crime was committed absent all the other elements of the offense. I know that’s not what you want to hear, but it’s the way the criminal law works.

And, again, there are still civil remedies.

@RTFirefly

Again, in the layman’s world, this shit is obvious.

Well thank god we don’t leave prosecution decisions up to laymen and their obvious shit.

@RT Firefly

But you lawyers make a hash of common sense, as well as what sure looks to me like the plain meaning of the statute.

And you, and people like you, wallow in ignorance while seemingly enjoy flinging shit at those who do understand what you don’t.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@RTFirefly

The law doesn’t work the way it does because mathematicians or carpenters’ wives made it work that way.

No wonder it’s so tangled up.

[drewtwo99]

Bricker touched on the main issue here. It seems those of us (myself included) believe that destroying property negligently/recklessly SHOULD be a criminal offense regardless of intent/motive. Basically, it should fall under the same category of crimes like involuntary manslaughter, statutory rape, and possibly others.

So, we aren’t arguing about what the law IS, but rather, what we think the law SHOULD be. We already know that there are some crimes where you don’t have to have a motive, or intent to commit a crime, but when you do them, you are committing a crime anyway. People like me believe that the law is a bit broken, that’s all.

So, if we really want to change things, we need to become politically active and write our state or county governments and urge them to pass laws that will criminalize this behavior. I am very satisfied with Bricker’s, Hamlet’s, and others’ responses on why this was almost certainly not a criminally culpable action on the part of the bank. However, we believe it should be, so the onus on us is to try and make it so, if we care that much.

I’m not a lawyer, of course, so I don’t know how I would word such a statute, but I’m pretty sure it could be done, that in cases of extreme negligence or recklessness, destruction of private property without motive to defraud could be still be criminally actionable.

I agree that in general, it’s good to only punish people who have a criminal motive, with intent to hurt or defraud someone. But I also believe that in certain, rare exceptions, motive is irrelevant, and destruction of private property in certain circumstances with regards to negligence or recklessness should be one of those exceptions.

[Saint_Cad]

@Hamlet

If they legitimately thought it was their house and thus didn’t meet the criminal statute’s requirements, then they couldn’t be charged with a crime. Horrible isn’t it, that we generally don’t criminally punish people for making mistakes.

My point is not that they made an honest mistake but that they would use criteria like there were no No Trespassing signs and an unlocked door as confirmation that they were at the right place.

And I believe we do punish people who “accidently” commit crimes when negligence is at hand.

[Saint_Cad]

@DrDeth

Let me do a related hypothetical. I think the issue here really is that banks are Evil.

So let’s take another look at it. I am driving my car. I rely upon my GPS. I make a Right turn onto a one way street, into oncoming traffic and hit a car. Am I liable? Sure, GPS or no. (let’s take aside the issue I may be able to sue the GPS provider)

Other than a traffic violation, did I commit a crime like assault with a deadly weapon? No.

Ummm . . . in Washington you did.

RCW 46.61.500
Reckless driving — Penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to three hundred sixty-four days and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

And your support for the premise that relying on a GPS is “willful or wanton disregard for safety” is…?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

OK.

Perhaps the single most fundamental principle in criminal law is the concept of the guilty mind.

Sure, but its importance shouldn’t be to the exclusion of all other principles.

The problem is, you can do just as much harm with or without intent. And in areas other than those controlled by law, ordinary people expect other ordinary people to take greater care when their actions might inadvertently cause greater harm.

To me, failure to take normal precautions against doing substantial harm to someone is the same thing as intentional recklessness. There may not be intent to cause harm, just an implicit decision to be a greater potential danger to those around him, and offload the increased risk onto the rest of the world.

AFAIAC, if such a person causes harm to another, he should be just as legally liable as the person who caused the same harm intentionally. Six of one.

I’d excuse a child or a retarded person from knowing or being able to intuit what the obvious precautions would be in a situation where notable harm might easily be inflicted. But that’s about it.

If a bunch of kids are playing in the backyard next door, and I decide it’s a good time to cut down a tree on my property that could potentially fall where the kids are playing, I should be on the hook for more than civil damages if the tree falls on one of them, because it’s pretty obvious what a falling tree can do to someone, and that should override my lack of intent to do them harm.

Don’t’cha think? I mean, the fact that I meant no harm should be neither here nor there if the consequences of screwing up were obvious and nontrivial, and I failed to take the obvious precautions - in this case, choosing a better, safer time to cut the tree down.

If the law sees this as a really important distinction - “I intended to try to make the tree fall on those kids when I cut down that tree” v. “Sure, I suppose I knew that if I cut down the tree, it could fall on them and cause great bodily harm, but I certainly didn’t intend to do so when I cut down the tree” - then I have a real problem with that, and will unhesitatingly say that the law is an ass.

The distinction between intending to cause harm by doing obviously potentially harmful action X, and doing X but not intending the harm, with the same likelihood of causing harm in both cases, is for me a distinction without a difference.

[kayaker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

And your support for the premise that relying on a GPS is “willful or wanton disregard for safety” is…?

…demonstrable by showing that the GPS in question is not running the most recent software/map update. (Many are not)

[Saint_Cad]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

And your support for the premise that relying on a GPS is “willful or wanton disregard for safety” is…?

That you should be able to read a “One Way” sign just like you should be able to read an address off a mailbox.

Unless of course you’re serious that not reading street signs is not a willful and wanton disregard for safety. Hell I blew past a stop sign on a main drag in California because it was way off to the side on a 3 lane highway at the intersection of a tiny little side street. I told the officer I didn’t see the sign and he said that didn’t matter. The fact I didn’t slow down at all meant he could have written me up for reckless driving and if I hit anyone it was an arrestable offense.

So if you think “My GPS told me.” despite the signs posted will get you off, I think you are delusional. But why don’t you ask loach or pkbites if ignoring a street sign in favor of what your GPS said is or is not willful or wanton disregard. If they back you up then I’ll stand corrected.

[Hamlet]

@RTFirefly

The problem is, you can do just as much harm with or without intent.

Which is one of the reasons why we have a legal system that includes civil law. Not every bad thing that happens should be a crime.

@RTFirefly

To me, failure to take normal precautions against doing substantial harm to someone is the same thing as intentional recklessness.

The phrase “intentional recklessness” shows just how much you don’t understand what is being discussed. It’s one of those phrases that makes anyone who has practiced criminal law just shake their head in dismay.

@RTFirefly

If a bunch of kids are playing in the backyard next door, and I decide it’s a good time to cut down a tree on my property that could potentially fall where the kids are playing, I should be on the hook for more than civil damages if the tree falls on one of them, because it’s pretty obvious what a falling tree can do to someone, and that should override my lack of intent to do them harm.

Which is why numerous states have “Reckless endangerment of a child” or reckless conduct charges. Some crimes do have that lesser mental state included in them. Criminal trespass and criminal damage to property aren’t those.

@RTFirefly

The distinction between intending to cause harm by doing obviously potentially harmful action X, and doing X but not intending the harm, with the same likelihood of causing harm in both cases, is for me a distinction without a difference.

Luckily for us, intent and the mental state of the actor is kinda a big deal in the criminal justice system.

[Doug_K]

@Hamlet

Which is why numerous states have “Reckless endangerment of a child” or reckless conduct charges. Some crimes do have that lesser mental state included in them. Criminal trespass and criminal damage to property aren’t those.

Ohio statute 2911.21 appears to be carefully and deliberately worded to avoid any kind of “I didn’t know I was in the wrong house” excuses. You keep insisting it has to be done knowingly, but the statute clearly and explicitly says it can be knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.

To be clear, it’s a misdemeanor, and only appears to carry a fine. The men shouldn’t have been arrested, just issued a summons.

[Hamlet]

@Doug_K

Ohio statute 2911.21 appears to be carefully and deliberately worded to avoid any kind of “I didn’t know I was in the wrong house” excuses.

I disagree completely. Section 1 clearly allows that exact defense, the person has to specifically know he’s going onto someone else’s property. The reckless section is in Section 3, and requires the property owner to take additional measures than normal to invoke the reckless standard. The statute is not saying what you think (or desperately want) it is.

@DougK

You keep insisting it has to be done knowingly, but the statute clearly and explicitly says it can be knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.

In different sections, with different measures taken by the owner. If you go out of your way to build a giant fence, reckless is enough. If you post signs every couple feet, reckless is enough. But if you don’t, like the vast majority of people and including this case, you still need actual knowledge. Which is why there isn’t likely going to be a criminal prosecution.

You don’t get to take the little bit you like about Section 3 (the reckless standard) and apply it to Section 1, just so you get to call a mistake a crime.

[Doug_K]

@Hamlet

I disagree completely. Section 1 clearly allows that exact defense, the person has to specifically know he’s going onto someone else’s property. The reckless section is in Section 3, and requires the property owner to take additional measures than normal to invoke the reckless standard. The statute is not saying what you think (or desperately want) it is. In different sections, with different measures taken by the owner. If you go out of your way to build a giant fence, reckless is enough. If you post signs every couple feet, reckless is enough. But if you don’t, like the vast majority of people and including this case, you still need actual knowledge. Which is why there isn’t likely going to be a criminal prosecution.

You don’t get to take the little bit you like about Section 3 (the reckless standard) and apply it to Section 1, just so you get to call a mistake a crime.

Read it again. You only have to do one of them to be guilty. ANY of the following, not ALL of the following.

[Hamlet]

@Doug_K

Read it again. You only have to do one of them to be guilty. ANY of the following, not ALL of the following.

I’ve read it many times. You have taken one particular element of the offense in Section 3 (the reckless mental state) and ignoring the rest of the section that requires the property owner to have taken additional steps such as signs or enclosures. If a person does not commit Section 1 (because they lack actual knowledge) and does not commit Section 3 (because there wasn’t actual knowledge, or signage, or any “enclosures manifestly designed to restrict access”, then they haven’t committed the offense.

[Doug_K]

@Hamlet

I’ve read it many times. You have taken one particular element of the offense in Section 3 (the reckless mental state) and ignoring the rest of the section that requires the property owner to have taken additional steps such as signs or enclosures. If a person does not commit Section 1 (because they lack actual knowledge) and does not commit Section 3 (because there wasn’t actual knowledge, or signage, or any “enclosures manifestly designed to restrict access”, then they haven’t committed the offense.

Signs OR fencing OR other enclosures. A house is an enclosure. With doors. Designed to restrict access. Which the men recklessly entered. Just as specified in section 3.

[Hamlet]

@Doug_K

Signs OR fencing OR other enclosures. A house is an enclosure. With doors. Designed to restrict access. Which the men recklessly entered. Just as specified in section 3.

Good luck arguing that an unlocked house meets the statutory definition of “enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access”. I’m pretty sure if they meant “house” they would have said “house” rather than enclosure which means … well an enclosure; and that, with your reading Section 1 is pretty much unnecessary in light of your expansive reading of Section 3, but that’s just me. Let me know when you find some caselaw to support you or, better yet, you convince the prosecutors to charge the bank workers with criminal trespass. Best of luck with that.

[Saint_Cad]

Let me throw this out in regards to 2911.11

(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

Wouldn’t the address on the mailbox be considered signage in a conspicuous place as to it being the incorrect house?

[Saint_Cad]

Hey just another question.
Is the county DA or state AG coming out with any statements on this?