Did they have any right to be there? If the building is on private property, perhaps the owner did not consent for its use by law enforcement. Could be that the owner was not contactable, or that law enforcement asked and the owner refused. Is there any sort of eminent domain–style law that would have allowed law enforcement to proactively occupy the roofs in the absence of the owners’ consent?
There is no way a building owner could deny access to law enforcement in that circumstance
Cite? Just because some dignitary decides to visit my neighbourhood, that gives federal/state/local police carte blanche to occupy my property as they see fit?
knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds;
the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
…
of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
Are you sure that applies? How is it that a political candidate’s campaign speech could be considered “Government business or official functions”?
It also covers:
a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting
I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Let’s say, per 18 U.S. Code § 1752, the Secret Service designates some building I own as “restricted buildings or grounds” in conjunction with an event where someone they protect will be visiting. They want access to the roof to position snipers, but the only access is through the inside of the building, and the doors are locked (and had already been locked at the time my building was designated as restricted). The Secret Service asks me to unlock the door. Setting aside for a moment the issue of my intent, if I refuse to unlock the door, does this inaction count as “obstructing or impeding ingress or egress”? That is, does “obstructing or impeding” require some positive action?
That sure sounds like impeding their ingress to me.
If the police had a warrant to search your property and you, simply through inaction, refused to let them in, would that be obstructing or impeding?
A candidate giving a speech isn’t conducting official government business.
But the Secret Service agents who are protecting that candidate while he gives that speech are conducting official government business.
But in this case it wasn’t just a candidate, it was a former president. Trump is a “person protected by the Secret Service” and therefore, where he is, is considered a restricted area. Whether or not he’s conducting “official business”, I think, is moot.
Presidential candidates get secret service protection, once designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. At this point, any presumptive candidate would have secret service protection.
The cited statute indicates that a place becomes a “restricted building or grounds” whenever it’s visited by any “person protected by the Secret Service”, such persons being anyone whom the President cares to designate via a memorandum. Particularly if the President can delegate designating authority, then it would seem that (under the interpretations advanced by others in this thread) this statute would be ripe for abuse by law enforcement officers. Rather than obtaining a warrant to search a property, they could just arrange to have one of themselves designated as “protected by the Secret Service”. Whoever controls access to the property then has the choice between allowing access or serving a year in prison for “impeding and obstructing”.
I don’t think there is any official business a former President can conduct. Once a President leaves office, they no longer have any official duties (unless they are specifically appointed to some new position in the government).
I have actually wondered about this as well. Denying me my property (for instance, I was planning to sunbathe on the roof today) for a political rally isn’t spelled out in the constitution.
I would think that in planning the rally they would need property owners’ consent or have to declare the venue unacceptable. I’m not aware of any mention of the Bill of Rights being set aside when someone under SS protection is in the area.
Has this ever gone to SCOTUS?
I believe it’s considered to be a limited form of eminent domain. Election campaigns are considered a public good, which legitimizes the temporary use of private property as needed to carry them out.
Because it’s the temporary use of private property rather than a permanent taking, it’s not considered to be a deprivation and doesn’t require due process.
I dislike eminent domain personally, the government can basically seize your property if it’s deemed to be in the best interests of the public, but that has been established law forever. And certainly to temporarily require use of your property for an important event is a lot more palatable.
Consider the other side… Imagine the POTUS was shot and killed because a shooter was able to sneak onto your property and had the perfect location to do it, and it only happened because you refused to cooperate with law enforcement and allow them to secure it.
To my mind, that would be the POTUS’s fault for knowingly holding an event in an area they knew to be insecure. Nothing was forcing them to hold an event in that particular place. The vast majority of their movements are planned far enough in advance that they ought to be able to secure the cooperation of nearby property owners for security purposes, or failing that, to relocate the event.
Well, probably not the President themselves, but more likely members of their staff and/or Secret Service leadership who planned the event, and evaluated and selected the location. I have to believe that a POTUS would not be directly involved in that level of planning an event, and evaluating the safety of the area.
There’s a difference between a place that can’t be secured, and a place that can’t be secured because Fred doesn’t want to cooperate.
There may be a point where if you were limited to a venue that didn’t inconvenience anyone, you didn’t have any choices at all. Without ever being directly involved in such planning and logistics I have no idea.
Yes, but as far as I know there’s a lot of due process that precedes eminent domain seizures. Contrary to what Douglas Adams may have taught, the government doesn’t just show up at your house one day with a bulldozer to make room for the next intergalactic highway. Presumably the government needs to proclaim its intentions in advance, perhaps consult with the stakeholders and affected parties, and even give them a chance to contest any final decision in court. I can’t imagine that a government would be allowed to seize and destroy someone’s home to build a road if, for example, there were a vacant and unclaimed lot right next to it that could be paved instead.
Is all that the case with 18 U.S. Code § 1752? Can people with Secret Service protection travel and hold events wherever they want without notice, or are they obliged to give advance warning to nearby property owners who may be adversely affected by the ensuing security arrangements? Could I object to the Secret Service’s use of my property to protect a campaign event on the grounds that nothing requires them to hold that event next door to me? What if there’s a field just down the road, or in the next town over, that’s just as suitable for such an event?