Property Invasion, Damages, Trespass Probable Cause Or Not - Arrested For Jumping A Fence Unlawfully Installed In The ROW

[zoinbergs]

Jurisdiction

Colorado

Hello guys! Very important case I have going on here, and I just wanted to see what everybody's thought were on the subject. Did the cops have arguable probable cause that night to arrest me? OR, did they commit the worst hate crime ever by denying my exculpatory evidence to my face and instead arresting me without a shred of arguable probable cause (thereby upholding stolen land that the nearby business owner shouldn't have taken in first place - that the cops were instead supposed to uphold MY right to be otherwise be in? The whole event was a "sting" I called it - as in I framed myself with the business owner's "trespassing" charge to see if the cops would be stupid enough to take the bait - and maybe this forum posting is likewise a sting if I turn out to be correct but nobody believes me! OR, maybe I'm totally mistaken? I'd like to think that I'm not, but I wanted to see if we could hash out the details in a forum such as this. PS- The trespassing charge has since been dropped, but the remaining charges are still pending, and I'm otherwise "holding out" on dismissing those remaining charges to see how many more [chronies] I can take out....

Photograph Of The Fenced In Area

2016.01.28 @ 1.53am - Officer Chernak Files A False Police Report Of Trespass On Private Property

Exculpatory Email Provided To The Fort Collins Police By David On The Other Side Of The Street

2016.01.28 @ 1.12am - Officer Chernak Files A False Arrest Affidavit Of Trespass On Private Property

Fort Collins Municipal Code 17-42 And 24-66 - Definitions Of The Public Right Of Way, Streets, Etc.

Fort Collins Municipal Code Division 3 - Encroachments: Permit Required, Notice To Remove, Etc.

City Of Fort Collins Minor Amendment And Fence (In And Adjacent To The ROW) Permit Applications

 

[Highwayman]

Your flowery post doesn't actually explain what happened. What's your argument? I'm not bothering with all of your links - just explain what happened clearly in PLAIN ENGLISH without all the commentary.

 

[mightymoose]

I agree it is not clear what you are wanting to know, but it does seem that you have done misconceptions about how police operate.
I'll just say that the police do not know where peppery lines are and they don't need to. They build probable cause to arrest based on the information available at the time. If they are later shown to be wrong about certain facts that does not mean they did not have probable cause to arrest at the time. You are likely wanting to fight something you can't win and have nothing to gain from doing so.

 

[army judge]

Too much work for me to download what is lurking on all those links, which could have viruses waiting to rob me blind, maybe even sexually grope, assault, harass, or *gasp* molest me.

Sorry, pal, I just do this to while away my idle hours trying to stay clean and sober over here at Mission of Love Care Center for Homeless Lawyers.

 

[adjusterjack]

He's on another site with the same stuff. A real jailhouse lawyer. Please ignore him. Check out the other site and you'll see why it's a bad idea to get into this.

Probable Cause or Not - Arrested for Jumping a Fence Unlawfully Installed in the Row

 

[zoinbergs]

"Your flowery post doesn't actually explain what happened. What's your argument? I'm not bothering with all of your links - just explain what happened clearly in PLAIN ENGLISH without all the commentary."

I jumped a fence into a right of way area that was being unlawfully restricted by a fence that did not have a permit. The person who erected the fence committed a municipal code violation (23-84) to which I believe the officers should have been enforcing against first, since the person was stealing the police' land, and not the other way around - that is, they should not be enforcing me not being allowed to be behind. (Did I get framed with the crime of trespassing, because the cops didn't take the original trespassing call of the one who stole the land first?) See Kuehl v. Burtis (Casetext) where the officers lacked arguable probable cause because they "took the wrong call" when they showed up and didn't do a thorough investigation, and essentially framed the victim with assault when it was the perpetrator who had actually committed the assault.


Basically, I provided the officers with the public property takedown notice for the fence, to which they ignored, then arrested me for trespassing on private property. The evidence I presented, I believe, trumped whatever hunches the police had (as in I don't believe they had any evidence whatsoever of the premises being private property, or evidence that the permission from the alleged nearby property owner had been revoked, or even evidence that they were even the ones who erected the fence in the first place). The charges have since dropped, so I'm not worried about trial, however I am looking to sue in 42 USC court for lack of arguable probable cause as I believe my fourth amendment rights have been infringed upon.

Does the situation presented of the cops having NO actual evidence whatsoever of it being private property, let alone withdrawn permission from the *not* owner of the property, vs me providing substantial tangible evidence that the fence was unlawfully erected within the public right of way, clarify, without controversy, that the officers lacked arguable probable cause, and are thus liable for damages?

People claim that the police are not required to know property lines, but I believe they are at the very least required to know basic jurisdiction via their patrol maps and old and unchanged city plats, as well as the definitions of the right of way as well as fence permit law, since they are tasked with upholding trespassing laws for public lands just as much as private lands.

The previous commenter says that "they build probable cause to arrest based on the information available at the time" - but in this case, I don't believe they had ANY tangible, articulate information to go off of, of their own at least, and instead only had OPPOSITE information to go off of, that I provided to them, which should have led them to decide the opposite, and not to arrest me over. They say that "if they are later shown to be wrong about certain facts" - I posit the question of, what FACTS were they going off of in the first place? Because fences can go up in the right of way just as easily as on private property. Meaning, just because a guy jumps behind a fence, doesn't mean the police' job is over right then and there. They still have to get certain other facts correct, and they (at least I believe) are not allowed to just pick private property, and then later before trial switch teams and say they had probable cause for public property.

Like I said, the charges have already been dropped, and so now now I am only probing to see how valid my 42 USC claims are. How much can the police get away with not knowing? No maps, no definitions, no nada? I have a hard time believing that people are just *automatically* not allowed to be behind a fence just because, at least one that has been unlawfully placed in the right of way, without at least some sort of verification as to the status of the permit of that fence -- is there one, and is it valid such that one can safely enforce trespassing charges against. Otherwise, it looks like the police are upholding stolen land that somebody stole from right under their noses because they don't know their own definitions of right of way, public vs. private property, etc. and they should instead be upholding MY rights to use that land against somebody who stole it from me.

 

[zoinbergs]

"He's on another site with the same stuff. A real troll. Please ignore him. Check out the other site and you'll see why it's a bad idea to get into this."

Excuse me, but I am allowed to utilize the resources of multiple sites without being considered a troll. I am only be resourceful. Are my conversations not legitimate? Do I not pose legitimate questions just because I found multiple avenues to ask them in? Please don't assume, it doesn't come across as very professional.

 

[zoinbergs]

You changed your wording to "A real jailhouse lawyer." What does that mean? Perhaps my "sting" is reaching farther than I thought. Are you guys seriously this immature such that you cannot have a real conversation about your failing criminal justice system?

The reason I jumped the fence was because somebody in my town was committing hate crimes against the homeless, alongside the police who don't hold rich people to the fire. Kinda looks like a mafia, a gang, a racket. Kinda looks like my main theory is turning out to be correct, in that we may be slipping into a nazi like police state that ya'll are too stupid to get out of.

Do you know what guilty until proven innocent means? It means that one can now get arrested for not showing their receipt at Walmart. Just a side example. But low and behold, I tested it out one day, and I actually did get falsely arrested for not showing my receipt! What a load of crap. Of course I showed my receipt right after they gave me my ticket, after which they embarrassingly canceled the whole case in front of me and got into big trouble with internal affairs and their store bosses.

Hasn't your mother ever told you, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?

 

[adjusterjack]

Thread closed.