I was reading this article on two gay men who were arrested in front of the Mormon Church headquarters for kissing (apparently a hug and kiss on the cheek).
They were walking home along the Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake City when this all occurred.
It seems from the article the city sold this area to the church some years ago.
Looking at pictures it sure seems a thoroughfare to me that is accessible to the public.
I thought some things, such as sidewalks, despite someone else “owning” it was deemed a public right of way.
Does the Church have the right to tell people to get off of the property? Does it matter if they are inconsistent in who they let on the property (for instance can they say no black people are allowed)?
This is not meant to be a debate on the issue in question. Just asking how far the property owner’s rights extend over this area.
The municipality may have an ‘ingress/egress’ easment over the street, which means that the public can travel up and down the street.
Rights-of-way typically confer more than just that. The right-of-way for a street is typically wider than the street itself, and may include the area where sidewalks, utility poles, fire hydrants, etc. are located.
If you could locate a tax map of Salt Lake City, it would show who the owner of the property is, and it would show all rights-of-way. It may or may not show easements.
ETA: IIRC, if it is a right-of-way then the private landowner cannot dictate who uses it. Easement descriptions are typically written to set forth who may use them.
I don’t think this answered your question but perhaps it helps.
Use of another’s property for a given use is called an easement. Easements for right-of-way are somewhat common. Often when property is initially developed, property owners dedicate part of the land as “public right-of-way” (e.g. sidewalks) as a condition of getting permission for development. Easements can also be created by implication because of prior use, or in other ways.
In 1999, the city sold the city block to the church but maintained a public easement for use of the thoroughfares. This easement, however, prevented the church from expelling people for trespassing on the grounds of them criticizing the church or otherwise engaging in conduct the church condemned. So, in 2003, the city sold the easement to the church. So, now the property is just private property and the church grants everyone implied license to enter, which they can revoke for any reason and any time.
I guess I am puzzled at being able to get busted for “trespass” there. Seems an iffy thing at best as a practical matter. If I were walking there I would think I am on a public right of way (particularly since I would be a visitor in the place in question here). I would not be aware of who owns what easement and I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be aware of that (unless they have signs clearly stating this is private property).
So, if some security guard came and gave me a hard time for kissing someone (in a chaste and not publicly lewd manner) and told me to get out I’d think he was kidding and assert my right to be in a public place. This of course would land me in jail.
Seems a bit bogus to me but I guess the law is the law.
I don’t think they’re being “busted” for trespass. I think their license to enter the property is being revoked, so they must leave or else they become trespassers. If they stay, then they could be trespassing.
Trespass is a confusing term because it refers to both the civil wrong of being on private property without permission as well as the crime, in some jurisdictions, that is often similar to the civil wrong. I can’t speak to Utah’s crime of trespass, but generally speaking, civil trespass doesn’t require knowledge that you’re on private land.
FWIW, they do have signs indicating that it is private property. It is quite obvious.
If you refuse to leave after you license is revoked, you are trespassing. I was speaking generally of the people who are asked to leave the property for behavior the church doesn’t like (which happens pretty frequently).
