# Legal question: occupying a vehicle without the owner's consent **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 1, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635 "2014-03-01T22:17:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/21 "2014-03-04T15:43:08Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > **If there is no crime, is the only legal way Victor can force Ignatz to leave the vehicle to sue him in court and get an injunction?** > If so, who would be responsible for enforcing the injunction? That is, would the court order allow Victor to personally eject Ignatz from the vehicle? Or would Victor need to get a bailiff to do so on his behalf? > > I realize that answers will vary depending on the jurisdiction, so please let me know which jurisdiction your answer applies to. I think that in the United States it is well established that an officer of the law can order the occupants of a vehicle to leave the vehicle while the officer investigates a possible crime. I’m sure that if Victor contacted an officer, he would find one willing to investigate long enough for Victor to lock the doors and drive away. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/22 "2014-03-04T15:59:23Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > I realize that answers will vary depending on the jurisdiction, so please let me know which jurisdiction your answer applies to. 2917.11 Disorderly conduct. (Ohio revised code) (A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: (4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender; (5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender. Let’s assume this would not apply, once ordered to leave by the police, and he refuses, then obstructing official business can be charged. He has NO legal right to be in or on private property without consent, so the police demanding he leave is a lawful order. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/23 "2014-03-04T16:08:10Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > I think that in the United States it is well established that an officer of the law can order the occupants of a vehicle to leave the vehicle while the officer investigates a possible crime. I’m sure that if Victor contacted an officer, he would find one willing to investigate long enough for Victor to lock the doors and drive away. Excellent answer. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/24 "2014-03-04T16:23:16Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > 2917.11 Disorderly conduct. (Ohio revised code) > > (A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: > (4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender; > > (5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender. I don’t see how (4) applies, since his presence in the vehicle is not preventing its movement, nor that of the owner. But (5) I suppose applies if one can consider one’s mere presence in a stranger’s vehicle to be “physically offensive”. (It certainly serves “no lawful and reasonable purpose”, so that condition is met.) > [@](#): > > Let’s assume this would not apply, once ordered to leave by the police, and he refuses, then obstructing official business can be charged. > > He has NO legal right to be in or on private property without consent, so the police demanding he leave is a lawful order. Perhaps your conclusion is correct, but I don’t think your reasoning is sound. There are countless activities which are not explicitly protected by law as rights; that doesn’t mean that any police officer can arbitrarily make you desist from them under threat of criminal charge. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/25 "2014-03-04T16:35:30Z")
As with most such questions there will be 50 answers to your question. While there have been many guesses here I can definitively state that in New Jersey he would be charged with 3rd degree burglary. As with many statutes the answer is not always spelled out in the writing of the statute. Sometimes its in case law and precedent. I’ll give a cite from a lawyer’s [website](http://www.morristownnjcriminallawpost.com/theft-and-fraud-offenses/burglary-njs-2c18-2/). Note the last paragraph. > [@](#): > > § 2C:18-2. Burglary > > a. Burglary defined. A person is guilty of burglary if, with purpose to commit an offense therein he: > > (1) Enters a research facility, structure, or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof unless the structure was at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter; or > > (2) Surreptitiously remains in a research facility, structure, or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so. Burglary is the act of entering the structure. Any theft would be a separate charge. There is no need for a theft to occur. > [@](#): > > Moreover, the structure does not have to be a home. Most people think of burglary as only breaking into a home to steal. This is not always the case. I recently represented a client in Morris County Superior Court in Morristown, New Jersey who was charged with burglary for opening a car in a parking lot and stealing a credit card from inside the vehicle. Note, he did not break into the car, the door was unlocked. However, opening the car door and stealing a credit card from inside the car since he planned on doing so upon opening the car door was sufficient to meet the requirements of burglary. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/26 "2014-03-04T16:40:17Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > I don’t see how (4) applies, since his presence in the vehicle is not preventing its movement, nor that of the owner. But (5) I suppose applies if one can consider one’s mere presence in a stranger’s vehicle to be “physically offensive”. (It certainly serves “no lawful and reasonable purpose”, so that condition is met.) (4) also states; …upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others… This certainly applies. If the offender has no reasonable explanation of why he is there, such as a shield from the cold, with no intent or mens rea of committing a crime, then it can assumed legally that under Terry, “criminal activity may be afoot”, and a temporary detainment for investigation is permitted, and as alley dweller said, he can be ordered out of the vehicle simply for that purpose, see Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v. Wilson. Even if a claim of a shield from the elements is proffered, an officer still can have a RS that “criminal activity may be afoot”. > [@](#): > > Perhaps your conclusion is correct, but I don’t think your reasoning is sound. There are countless activities which are not explicitly protected by law as rights; that doesn’t mean that any police officer can arbitrarily make you desist from them under threat of criminal charge. True, but not here. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/27 "2014-03-04T16:43:27Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Burglary is the act of entering the structure. Any theft would be a separate charge. There is no need for a theft to occur. In CA, I know from past reading, that if a person enters a store with the prior intent to steal, that is BURGLARY. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/28 "2014-03-04T16:43:30Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > As with most such questions there will be 50 answers to your question. I’m sure it’s a lot more than 50. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Burglary is the act of entering the structure. Any theft would be a separate charge. There is no need for a theft to occur. There is no need for a theft, but there _is_ a need for the perpetrator to enter “with purpose to commit an offense”. The statute you cite therefore doesn’t apply unless there is also some _other_ crime which Ignatz has committed (or intends to commit) simply by virtue of occupying the vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/29 "2014-03-04T16:49:02Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > (4) also states; > > …upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others… > > This certainly applies. It doesn’t matter if that bit applies; if any one condition in a conjunction of conditions does not apply, then the whole of it does not. The statute you quoted has “hindering or preventing the movement of persons” as a necessary condition, but it’s not met in my scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/30 "2014-03-04T16:51:46Z")
What’s the typical definition of criminal theft statutes? Ignatz isn’t physically preventing Victor from driving away, but he’s certainly preventing Victor from enjoying his car fully; and Ignatz is preventing Victor from doing things with his car (giving a bunch of people a ride) that he might want to do in the future. If I were a DA and could fit Ignatz into a trespassing statute, that’s what I’d prefer, but maybe theft would work? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/31 "2014-03-04T16:53:00Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > It doesn’t matter if that bit applies; if any one condition in a conjunction of conditions does not apply, then the whole of it does not. The statute you quoted has “hindering or preventing the movement of persons” as a necessary condition, but it’s not met in my scenario. Since no “reasonably prudent person” would enter their car with Mr. X in it under threat of physical harm or kidnapping, etc. they are therefore hindered from free movement in their private property ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/32 "2014-03-04T17:28:39Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Since no “reasonably prudent person” would enter their car with Mr. X in it under threat of physical harm or kidnapping, etc. they are therefore hindered from free movement in their private property Yeah, I’ll admit that argument is pretty persuasive. I certainly wouldn’t want to get back into my car if it were occupied by a stranger who looked like he had the capacity to physically harm me. I suppose the question is whether it’s necessary that Ignatz _intends_ to hinder Victor, or if the mere fact that Victor felt threatened (albeit reasonably so) is sufficient to determine that actual hindrance had occurred. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/33 "2014-03-04T18:14:32Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Yeah, I’ll admit that argument is pretty persuasive. I certainly wouldn’t want to get back into my car if it were occupied by a stranger who looked like he had the capacity to physically harm me. I suppose the question is whether it’s necessary that Ignatz _intends_ to hinder Victor, or if the mere fact that Victor felt threatened (albeit reasonably so) is sufficient to determine that actual hindrance had occurred. Unless I miss my mark even the case law will not suggest that the person seek an altenative to the offenders action. Example, you are driving down the road and a person steps out in front of your car and refuses to move, that in and of itself violates the law. Would it be necessary for the person to simply back up or go around for a violation to stick? The same scenario for being IN the car, the owner does not have to get in. Does the law indicate the person has no legal recourse with the police, simply because s/he can just not get in, walk to work, take a bus shopping, this would be an alternative, but does the law mandate that before one can seek on scene legal redress? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635/34 "2014-03-05T12:54:25Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > I’m sure it’s a lot more than 50. :)There is no need for a theft, but there _is_ a need for the perpetrator to enter “with purpose to commit an offense”. The statute you cite therefore doesn’t apply unless there is also some _other_ crime which Ignatz has committed (or intends to commit) simply by virtue of occupying the vehicle. He entered the car with the purpose to deprive the owner of his property. Depending on the circumstances he could could also be harassing or also trespassing. The offense in “with the purpose to commit an offense” does not have to be theft. He would be charged with burglary in New Jersey. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-occupying-a-vehicle-without-the-owners-consent/682635.md?page=1)