Metro trespassed someone from my property today; with video

[davidmcbeth]

I see. It appears I remain ignorant of finer points of Napoleonic law.

Gotta be on your land
Not just messing with your can

[good song beginning?]

 

[OC for ME]

Getting back to the original question, NO, you do NOT have the legal power to hold the trespasser. Any attempt to do so might be prosecutable as false imprisonment or even kidnapping, depending on how you do it.

NRS 200.460.1: "1.  False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority."

.3(b) says that doing it with the "use" of a deadly weapon is a category B felony, good for a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 6 years. And, of course, the loss of gun rights for the rest of your life.

Consider:
1) You told that person to stay off of your property.
2) If the person enters your property following your order, you have the right to call law enforcement, who will determine whether there is cause for arrest.
3) Detaining the person on your property is a direct contradiction of your order that she not be on your property, and if she has committed no other direct offense, you have polluted your own order.
4) If you do so while armed, you are likely to face felony prosecution, especially if your prosecutor's office doesn't like guns or doesn't like YOU.
5) If she comes onto your property after some visible piece of trash, there is the likelihood that you will be seen as having lured her, another weapon given the prosecutor (and her lawyer in the certain-to-follow civil suit).
6) Given all of the above, what do you think your chances are of coming out on top, and is your trash really worth the mess?

I disagree.

NRS 171.126  Arrest by private person.  A private person may arrest another:
1.  For a public offense committed or attempted in the person’s presence.
2.  When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the person’s presence.
3.  When a felony has been in fact committed, and the private person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
(Added to NRS by 1967, 1402)

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.html#NRS171Sec126

It will come down to the application of the "public offense" meaning and application. I'm not gunna search NV case law, this would be a burden for the NV citizen who desires to use this statute to exercise his "arrest" power.

 

[Maverick9]

Padlock your can or otherwise make it difficult to open, give the trash guys the combination.

Bag up your stuff inside two bags, making it hard to access the contents.

Have a fence with a remote release lock keeping them from getting to your can (barrier)

 

[Primus]

Gotta be on your land
Not just messing with your can

[good song beginning?]

This is my land... This my can.... Now get your can.... Away from my cannnnnnnn... You best refrain..... Or I'll detain.... Your can.... On my.......lllllaaaaaaannnnnnnnd!

Lmao thank you David. I think made a single.

 

[Nevada carrier]

Ah-ha ! I don't think that the can IS on the OP's property ... so its a moot point.

Actually, it was, and so was she. Which is why metro gave her a trespass warning.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Actually, it was, and so was she. Which is why metro gave her a trespass warning.

Post a copy of the notice. thx

 

[notalawyer]

OP, you do understand the the police have no authority to force this person to identify herself, right? Nor detain her in order to do so.

In this situation the are not acting in the lawful performance of their duties, they are acting as agent of the property owner and therefore subject to the limitations thereof.

p.s. In most states, citizen's arrest can only take place if it's a felony.

 

[utbagpiper]

I lost sympathy when you revealed that you were not only in bed with, but were in fact President of, a HOA.

You've basically rejected the concept of property rights, so why should we maintain yours?

Attacking the right of homeowners to from an HOA is, itself, a gross rejection of the concept of both property and contract rights. Indeed, I find HOAs to be far more in line with the concept of property rights than I do government imposed zoning.

At least in my part of the nation, nobody has to buy a home in an area with an HOA. There are even a fair number of homes available that are not subject to city zoning. All else being equal, however, it appears that homes with zoning sell for more than homes without zoning and homes in HOAs tend to sell for more than similar homes without HOAs. The reason is quite clear, people are willing to pay a premium for a home that comes with rules the buyer finds agreeable and will help to prevent conduct he finds disagreeable.

For all the bad rap HOAs get, they are a sterling example of private contracting to avoid conflicts. A neighborhood with HOAs agreeable to the buyer is a great asset as he has a higher level of protection from conduct that he finds disagreeable, or that he believes would degrade his quality of life or property values than the same home in roughly the same area, but without any such protections.

Those who don't like the protections and restrictions afforded by HOAs should, obviously, avoid buying a home that is subject to HOAs. But only someone with a real dislike for property and contract laws would condemn HOAs in total.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

Attacking the right of homeowners to from an HOA is, itself, a gross rejection of the concept of both property and contract rights. Indeed, I find HOAs to be far more in line with the concept of property rights than I do government imposed zoning.

That's a cute straw man/false dilemma you've offered.

Homeowners have every right to voluntarily form associations to maintain neighborhoods and even set (voluntary) standards of conduct, etc. But if you believe that coercive measures are compatible with "property ownership", this disagreement is semantic and far too fundamental to resolve here.

If you have the legal ability to prevent me from, for instance, keeping pink flamingos on my yard, then I do not own my property. You can squirm and redefine terms all you like in order to make the bare assertion that this stems from "property rights", but so long as you do so we'll be talking at cross purposes.

As far as contracts, you do not meaningfully "own" a property if you have contractually agreed to limit its use, especially if that contract is permanently attached to the property. I believe such arrangements are fraudulent when they are described as a "transfer of real property", and I also believe that the circumstances where this form of property non-ownership may legitimately arise are sufficiently limited as to preclude most existing HOAs.

I assume you fall into the "right to contract yourself into slavery" camp.

 

[OC Freedom]

That's a cute straw man/false dilemma you've offered.

Homeowners have every right to voluntarily form associations to maintain neighborhoods and even set (voluntary) standards of conduct, etc. But if you believe that coercive measures are compatible with "property ownership", this disagreement is semantic and far too fundamental to resolve here.

If you have the legal ability to prevent me from, for instance, keeping pink flamingos on my yard, then I do not own my property. You can squirm and redefine terms all you like in order to make the bare assertion that this stems from "property rights", but so long as you do so we'll be talking at cross purposes.

As far as contracts, you do not meaningfully "own" a property if you have contractually agreed to limit its use, especially if that contract is permanently attached to the property. I believe such arrangements are fraudulent when they are described as a "transfer of real property", and I also believe that the circumstances where this form of property non-ownership may legitimately arise are sufficiently limited as to preclude most existing HOAs.

I assume you fall into the "right to contract yourself into slavery" camp.

+1

 

[DVC]

Actually, it was, and so was she. Which is why metro gave her a trespass warning.

The one doesn't follow the other.

A trespass notice is actually no more than a warning that a person is denied entry to the protected property, that such entry may result in arrest, and advising the cops that you desire such arrest to be made if the person enters the property. It's a warning shot fired across the bow, so to speak.

It is not necessary that the "trespassed" person actually enter the property before the notice is given, and the cops don't necessarily know where the property lines are. It only becomes important if they actually make an arrest, which they are not likely to do to someone poking around in a trash can near the edge of the property.

 

[DVC]

I have nothing against those who choose to live under the restricted covenants of a hard HOA.

I would never do that, but that's my own choice. I have lived under a "soft" HOA (that is, a neighborhood committee with no codes or enforcement powers) which was formed to maintain the roads in the area, and that was fine. There were guidelines published by the HOA, but were requests rather than demands.

 

[marshaul]

I have nothing against those who choose to live under the restricted covenants of a hard HOA.

I would never do that, but that's my own choice. I have lived under a "soft" HOA (that is, a neighborhood committee with no codes or enforcement powers) which was formed to maintain the roads in the area, and that was fine. There were guidelines published by the HOA, but were requests rather than demands.

I'm rarely persuaded by arguments which depend on the putative "choice" to live somewhere (if you don't like having your RKBA infringed, then move!).

What if an individual inherits a home (and an HOA with it), and is unable to accumulate enough wealth to move out of the house of his birth? He simply has no right to ever have pink flamingos in his yard? Nonsense.

Now, if we were talking about agreements purely between individuals, that's another story. But the moment those become attached to property, "agreement" becomes a fiction akin to "consent of the governed".

 

[davidmcbeth]

I'm rarely persuaded by arguments which depend on the putative "choice" to live somewhere (if you don't like having your RKBA infringed, then move!).

<snip>.

Me neither .. perhaps all private property will end up being under a HOA. Then what?

Socialists love HOAs.

Got a problem with a neighbor ... go and talk to him....?????????????!!!!!!!

 

[utbagpiper]

That's a cute straw man/false dilemma you've offered.

Neither straw man nor a false dilemma. It is clear you do not support the right to contract.

Homeowners have every right to voluntarily form associations to maintain neighborhoods and even set (voluntary) standards of conduct, etc. But if you believe that coercive measures are compatible with "property ownership", this disagreement is semantic and far too fundamental to resolve here.

One point of contracts is to form private law that brings "coercive measures" to bear for violation of the contract. What good is a contract without some means of enforcement?

If you have the legal ability to prevent me from, for instance, keeping pink flamingos on my yard, then I do not own my property.

The only legal ability an HOA has is the voluntary decision of the (original) property owner to enter into a contract containing such a restriction and of subsequent, potential buyers, to purchase the property knowing that such a restriction exists on it.

If the owner is not able to enter into such a contract he does not really own his property.

You can squirm and redefine terms all you like in order to make the bare assertion that this stems from "property rights", but so long as you do so we'll be talking at cross purposes.

The only squirming and redefining of terms is on your part.

As far as contracts, you do not meaningfully "own" a property if you have contractually agreed to limit its use, especially if that contract is permanently attached to the property.

You can argue semantics about it means to "own" property all you want. I believe if you are not able to enter into such contracts then you don't "own" the property. And permanently attached easements or restrictions are and always have been quite common on real estate. They are not the least bit unique to HOAs.

I believe such arrangements are fraudulent when they are described as a "transfer of real property",

I don't think the words "fraud" or "fraudulent" mean what you think they mean. You use them quite a bit in cases where there clearly is no fraud. You tend to use those words they way many of the un-educated use the term "unconstitutional": to mean "something I don't personally like."

I understand l/Libertarians are opposed to the "initiation of force or fraud." But that doesn't mean every non-violent conduct you personally don't like is "fraud."

and I also believe that the circumstances where this form of property non-ownership may legitimately arise are sufficiently limited as to preclude most existing HOAs.

I understand there are still those who believe the earth is flat. You and they are entitled to your beliefs. Recognize that both are so far outside the mainstream of accepted facts as to be laughable.

I assume you fall into the "right to contract yourself into slavery" camp.

Either your reading comprehension is way below average, you like jumping to unfounded conclusions, or you are merely trying to throw out insults knowing you are way off base. In any event, you should assume less and simply ask for clarification.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I'm rarely persuaded by arguments which depend on the putative "choice" to live somewhere (if you don't like having your RKBA infringed, then move!).

What if an individual inherits a home (and an HOA with it), and is unable to accumulate enough wealth to move out of the house of his birth? He simply has no right to ever have pink flamingos in his yard? Nonsense.

Now, if we were talking about agreements purely between individuals, that's another story. But the moment those become attached to property, "agreement" becomes a fiction akin to "consent of the governed".

And so if a man in good faith pays for a right-of-way across another man's field, that right-of-way can be eliminated, without compensation, simply because someone else buys or inherits the property and decides he doesn't like the fact that someone else is walking or driving across a piece of the land? Nonsense! You have undermined the whole of contract law by placing such arbitrary limits on it.

Mortgages are nothing but contracts attached to property. What if you inherit property but can't afford to pay the existing mortgage?

To bring up a restriction on RKBA in this context is to either be grossly ignorant of the concept of the recognized limits of contract law (contracts contrary to public policy are not enforceable) or to deliberately use an emotional red herring. The courts have ruled that contracts limiting the race, religion, etc of potential buyers cannot be enforced. Limits on fundamental rights like RKBA warrant even stronger protection.

But when we talk of pink flamingos, how many dogs you keep in your yard, how many junk cars you park on the front lawn, whether or not you run a high-traffic business out of your home, or whether a neighbor or utility company has a permanent easement across the land, contract law is very well established. You are talking about a view of rights theory and contract law all but wholly foreign to our history of jurisprudence. In other words, you're dealing in some kind of bizarro-world libertopia rather than in our American-English legal system.

If you don't like HOAs, don't buy a home in one. If you inherit a home in such a location, sell it and buy a comparable home in a comparable location without HOAs. In most cases, you'll end up with money in your pocket when you are done because the home in the HOA will be worth more than an equal home outside the HOA.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

Someone likes socialism.

 

[marshaul]

Neither straw man nor a false dilemma. It is clear you do not support the right to contract.

It's difficult to imagine how you come to this conclusion. If you contractually agree with someone to use property in a certain way, that person has an interest in your property. Hence, you are no longer the sole owner. You may do this, but you may not subsequently sell this agreement as property, which is what occurs when property is sold with an HOA attached.

One point of contracts is to form private law that brings "coercive measures" to bear for violation of the contract. What good is a contract without some means of enforcement?

Indeed, but that doesn't affect my argument. See the above.

The only legal ability an HOA has is the voluntary decision of the (original) property owner to enter into a contract containing such a restriction and of subsequent, potential buyers, to purchase the property knowing that such a restriction exists on it.

If the owner is not able to enter into such a contract he does not really own his property.

This is where the fraud comes into play. Since the original owner no longer has exclusive interest over the property (it being necessarily shared with other owners in the HOA), he may not legitimately sell his stake in this arrangement as "real property". It is nothing more than interest in mutual property.

Now, there's nothing wrong with owning property collectively. But a stake in an ownership collective (such as a corporation) needs to be described as such, not as exclusive title to real property.

If I buy a gun from you, I can use that gun for any (lawful) purpose I see fit. If you maintain the right to limit my use of the gun, then you maintain an ownership interest, and you have not in fact sold me the gun, but have in fact sold me license to use your (or our) gun.

I should add that I am fairly confident that the perception of homes with HOAs being "more valuable" (one I do not share) would immediately be reversed should this fraud be prohibited, given Americans' attachment to the "American dream" of owning a home (as opposed to being part of a collective). Of course, smug urbanites have a prediction for socialism anyway, and so they will continue to overvalue their condominiums.

The only squirming and redefining of terms is on your part.

Nonsense. My use of terminology has ample precedent. What is today known as "allodial title" should be the basis of property – not this watered down socialistic version you espouse where everyone from government to your neighbor has interest in your property.

And permanently attached easements or restrictions are and always have been quite common on real estate. They are not the least bit unique to HOAs.

There's a bit of is/ought conflation going on here. I'm clearly arguing what from a moral basis (thus what ought to be). What is isn't of primary significance.

Even so, easements are similar in structure, but can be argued to be necessitated by the right of adjacent property owners to access their own property (where this is so). And you certainly have a right to not have your neighbor pollute onto your property (for instance). But these functions are already accounted for by easements. HOAs exist, therefore, not to ensure negative rights, but to provide a positive "right" to force your neighbors to use their property to maximize your property's "value" (as though this is somehow ever anything but wholly subjective and arbitrary).

I don't think the words "fraud" or "fraudulent" mean what you think they mean. You use them quite a bit in cases where there clearly is no fraud. You tend to use those words they way many of the un-educated use the term "unconstitutional": to mean "something I don't personally like."

I understand l/Libertarians are opposed to the "initiation of force or fraud." But that doesn't mean every non-violent conduct you personally don't like is "fraud."

Oh, you really showed me up this time!

At least we've established you're not discussing in good faith.

I understand there are still those who believe the earth is flat. You and they are entitled to your beliefs. Recognize that both are so far outside the mainstream of accepted facts as to be laughable.

Is/ought coupled with appeal to popularity. Invalid. The earth is not round because that is what "mainstream accepted fact" dictates (otherwise it would have been flat at times past).

And so if a man in good faith pays for a right-of-way across another man's field, that right-of-way can be eliminated, without compensation, simply because someone else buys or inherits the property and decides he doesn't like the fact that someone else is walking or driving across a piece of the land? Nonsense! You have undermined the whole of contract law by placing such arbitrary limits on it.

To the extent that the proprietor is selling something which is binding on individuals not himself, the agreement is fraudulent. If the individual needs right of way, it is probably covered by easement.

There has to be a line. To apply a similar reductio ad absurdum to your position: tracts of land as large as some states have, at times, been owned by a single individual. Your position would have it such that these original proprietors could attach absurd conditions to the subsequent ownership of said property, to be perpetuated into eternity. More realistically, entire neighborhoods could be forced to adhere to the standards of decades (or even a century or more) past. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the point of transfer seems appropriate to me.

Mortgages are nothing but contracts attached to property. What if you inherit property but can't afford to pay the existing mortgage?

Frankly, I don't believe mortgages should be directly inheritable. My version of reformed mortgages would be small, short-term, goal-oriented, and would offer significantly altered risk analysis. Risk of death is a traditional cost associated with most other types of loans. No big deal.

To bring up a restriction on RKBA in this context is to either be grossly ignorant of the concept of the recognized limits of contract law (contracts contrary to public policy are not enforceable) or to deliberately use an emotional red herring. The courts have ruled that contracts limiting the race, religion, etc of potential buyers cannot be enforced. Limits on fundamental rights like RKBA warrant even stronger protection.

You attach motivations of your own creation to my arguments, again acting in bad faith. RKBA analogies are a default because they are contextually apropos to the forum. This is, incidentally, a traditional rhetorical technique when engaging an established audience. It's called "starting from common ground", and it's not an "emotional red herring".

But when we talk of pink flamingos, how many dogs you keep in your yard, how many junk cars you park on the front lawn, whether or not you run a high-traffic business out of your home, or whether a neighbor or utility company has a permanent easement across the land, contract law is very well established. You are talking about a view of rights theory and contract law all but wholly foreign to our history of jurisprudence. In other words, you're dealing in some kind of bizarro-world libertopia rather than in our American-English legal system.

The theory is grounded in the same precedent as is the actually-operating system. I'd argue that in many ways we moved towards socialism, to the degree that we have reform is mandated, and that the various libertarian approaches offer the avenue of reform most compatible with reality, history, and right.

If you don't like HOAs, don't buy a home in one. If you inherit a home in such a location, sell it and buy a comparable home in a comparable location without HOAs. In most cases, you'll end up with money in your pocket when you are done because the home in the HOA will be worth more than an equal home outside the HOA.

Right, because your right to force obedience from your neighbors outweighs their right to not be forced to vacate their ancestral home.

 

[OC Freedom]

We are the Homeowners Association. You will be assimulated. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

[The Truth]

:lol:

We are the Homeowners Association. You will be assimulated. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.