Montana corner crossing (ish?)

[Elky Welky]

Do you happen to have the information on the legislature not allowing/passing a bill on using mapping apps as evidence in court? I'd be interested in reading that.

Okay, so I remembered flagging it early on in a bill draft from one of the coalitions, but it never made it to the floor. I had to dig through emails from pre-session to try and figure out where I had flagged that. So you can disregard: the legislature didn't consider it. Obviously there are parties interested in putting that language into statute, but it hasn't gone to the floor. Yet. We need to stay vigilant, however, because the idea is out there.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Okay, so I remembered flagging it early on in a bill draft from one of the coalitions, but it never made it to the floor. I had to dig through emails from pre-session to try and figure out where I had flagged that. So you can disregard: the legislature didn't consider it. Obviously there are parties interested in putting that language into statute, but it hasn't gone to the floor. Yet. We need to stay vigilant, however, because the idea is out there.

There was a lot of discussion relative to the "OnX" defense ahead of the session & the Elk Package had a bill in it that would have done a couple of things relative to this, but ultimately - using OnX, as I understand it, is not a legal way to prove innocence in terms of trespass unless the data would exonerate that person (as this may be the case here). I'm sure it can prove intent. That bill was HB 621

I do not see how you could have a bill to remove that freedom survive any constitutional challenge against it though.

The other thing that the Leg did was include an amendment for a new full time employee that will work on scraping data on what is an open and closed county road based on local court docs. Huge thanks to the Section C Subcommittee for taking that up! I understand that position should be out for posting soon.

 

[Elky Welky]

There was a lot of discussion relative to the "OnX" defense ahead of the session & the Elk Package had a bill in it that would have done a couple of things relative to this, but ultimately - using OnX, as I understand it, is not a legal way to prove innocence in terms of trespass unless the data would exonerate that person (as this may be the case here). I'm sure it can prove intent. That bill was HB 621

I do not see how you could have a bill to remove that freedom survive any constitutional challenge against it though.

The other thing that the Leg did was include an amendment for a new full time employee that will work on scraping data on what is an open and closed county road based on local court docs. Huge thanks to the Section C Subcommittee for taking that up! I understand that position should be out for posting soon.

Thanks Ben! That's what I was thinking of and what I had flagged.

But I think it goes a little further into what would be called "invading the province of a jury." A defendant is not required to "prove innocence" and OnX or other mapping apps would and should be admissible evidence for a jury to decide whether or not it passes muster. The standard is "weight not admissibility." Meaning, although it should always be admitted, the jury gets to weigh how relevant it is and useful in deciding the facts at issue. The big concern with that one was that the legislature shouldn't step into the role of a court and jurors and summarily exclude highly relevant information from consideration.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben! That's what I was thinking of and what I had flagged.

But I think it goes a little further into what would be called "invading the province of a jury." A defendant is not required to "prove innocence" and OnX or other mapping apps would and should be admissible evidence for a jury to decide whether or not it passes muster. The standard is "weight not admissibility." Meaning, although it should always be admitted, the jury gets to weigh how relevant it is and useful in deciding the facts at issue. The big concern with that one was that the legislature shouldn't step into the role of a court and jurors and summarily exclude highly relevant information from consideration.

Aha, thanks for the further clarification. Makes total sense & 110% with you.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

Remember that there's two types of trespass - criminal and civil. Most attorneys that I've listened to seem to agree that corner crossing is not criminal trespass. Civil, on the other hand, is up in the air (no pun intended).

In the Wyoming case, the landowner, in my opinion, really failed to show damages, which is required for there to be a trespass. The claim was that if corner crossing is legal it devalues his property. That's a circular reference, if its legal then that value wasn't there to begin with. I can't think of a situation where crossing some airspace would create a definable damage, but every situation is different.

I have yet to find a place where I know for sure that I wouldn't be stepping on private land or on private property (i.e. maybe a fence?) but I haven't really looked either.

 

[BuzzH]

Worth a listen with the lead attorney on the Wyoming case.

Ep. 488: The Wyoming Corner Crossing Lawyer Finally Speaks Out | MeatEater Podcasts

Steven Rinella talks Ryan Semerad, Ryan Callaghan, Janis Putelis, Brody Henderson, Randall Williams, and Phil Taylor. Topics discussed: Political figures who pose as hunters; island biogeography and culling mule deer on Catalina; when you follow a girl to Wyoming; law doggin’; driving a turtle...

www.themeateater.com

 

[Lota lota]

Okay, so I remembered flagging it early on in a bill draft from one of the coalitions, but it never made it to the floor. I had to dig through emails from pre-session to try and figure out where I had flagged that. So you can disregard: the legislature didn't consider it. Obviously there are parties interested in putting that language into statute, but it hasn't gone to the floor. Yet. We need to stay vigilant, however, because the idea is out there.

Thanks for the update! I was just curious because GPS and Onx is all that we (public hunters) have to go by now a days.

 

[Cornbread]

Remember that there's two types of trespass - criminal and civil. Most attorneys that I've listened to seem to agree that corner crossing is not criminal trespass. Civil, on the other hand, is up in the air (no pun intended).

In the Wyoming case, the landowner, in my opinion, really failed to show damages, which is required for there to be a trespass. The claim was that if corner crossing is legal it devalues his property. That's a circular reference, if its legal then that value wasn't there to begin with. I can't think of a situation where crossing some airspace would create a definable damage, but every situation is different.

I have yet to find a place where I know for sure that I wouldn't be stepping on private land or on private property (i.e. maybe a fence?) but I haven't really looked either.

Im not an attorney, but the landowner doesn't have to prove his value has fallen by selling the property. In economics and finance there are 3 valuation methods that an hired expert could testify as to the value of the property. I believe it would be a valid way for the landowner to use. Methodical, and not pulling a number out of his ass. Just saying. I side with the 4 guys from Missouri completely. To me, the issue is "can the landowner block access to public land that is landlocked?" In other states, private land cannot be sold to somebody if it is landlocked. I think THAT is the strongest argument. It is a "taking, in essence, of public lands".

 

[DP_PublicLands]

I guess what I am trying to say is that the landowner was saying that his property was devalued because he doesn't have exclusive access to public land like he thought. Just by claiming that, he's saying that he doesn't have exclusive access. Which means its not trespassing. That's what I meant by circular reference. In order for there to be damages, it means that corner crossing is legal and the trespass issue is moot.

Watch the Meateater interview linked above - their attorney makes the same point.

I'm a strong property rights supporter. Notice I said property rights. Private AND Public - and they are equal.

No damages - no trespass. Tell me, what did they damage?

 

[rogerthat]

No damages - no trespass. Tell me, what did they damage?

They damaged the assumptions Fred had of exclusive access to these public lands which had possibly been promoted by the realtors when he purchased the lands. He may have overpaid because of this false assumption. If the landowners have a gripe and experienced damages, their best bet would be to sue the realtors. That would be a court proceeding I would thoroughly enjoy. I like realtors about as much as presumptuous egotistical absentee landowners like Fred

 

[DP_PublicLands]

They damaged the assumptions Fred had of exclusive access to these public lands which had possibly been promoted by the realtors when he purchased the lands. He may have overpaid because of this false assumption. If the landowners have a gripe and experienced damages, their best bet would be to sue the realtors. That would be a court proceeding I would thoroughly enjoy. I like realtors about as much as presumptuous egotistical absentee landowners like Fred

Bingo!