Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Wind Gypsy]

Nobody is going to take you to court for zero damages. Yet, in the past, the Montana legislature introduced a bill to impose minimum damages for civil trespass of $1,500. That bill finally died, but the composition of the legislature today almost guarantees that bill would be reintroduced, likely with a much higher minimum damage, somewhere near $5,000 per event. Then the landowner doesn't even need to prove a damage. He gets $5,000 for every corner crossed.

I feel like they'd have to make the law extra petty and make it specific to corner crossing. Wouldn't attract a lot of favor to the paid for politicians when grandma jean and little billy start getting $5k trespassing penalties for cutting across the corner of Bob's lawn in Bozeman.

 

[idahohuntr]

1. The landowner(s) still have the very most to lose.

Several great points - but this is one I really agree with and can't figure out from the landowner side. Landowners contending they can legally block public lands via corner cross have almost nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Ambiguity and threats are their best friend. If they lose this case, or it gets dismissed...they now will see a flood of people accessing via corner.

If the landowners prevail, given the available facts of this corner cross, I think it serves a great model for championing a whole base of recreationists...not just hunters...and while the political makeup of some states might not be friendly for the short-term, I think the tide of voter sentiment on public land access will turn into a tsunami.

 

[winmag]

I'm curious if/how the court would consider how a reasonable, logical person would look at the map and make a decision.

For example, the first time I hunted out West (a while ago now, well beyond the statute of limitations) I corner crossed because it never entered my early 20's mind that it could possibly be wrong. There were no fences, miles from manmade structures of any kind, I found the corner marker, stepped over it, never stepped on private land. I was hunting solo, didn't see any other hunters, or take any game that day. I was floored when later that week a friend told me what I'd done wasn't "legal".

 

[TOGIE]

so since civics class was like... a long time ago, and considering that it wouldn't have even covered a topic like this... someone help me out here:

let's run the hypothetical: case dismissed, private property interests throw the most massive and petty tantrum seen in the history of God's green earth, crawl on their hands and knees to the wyoming legislature to beg for clarity on corner cross with minimum financial penalty for a criminal trespass violation. the legislature coddles their poor little private property interests and revises statute.

okay, so then let's say the wyoming legislature ignored lobbyist and citizen concerns that this violates due process and passed it anyway.

so, here in colorado i believe the new red flag laws violate due process, so did nearly all of our county sheriffs and i'm sure many lobbyists, yet here we are, approaching year 2 of the law.

on one hand, if the state constitution says something is legal, then it's the law, and it stands, we have to move on, and the only hope is changing state law again. but on the other hand not if it violates federal law right? wouldn't the only recourse then be to get into a federal court where a judge can say your states petty little cry baby private interest law actually violates federal law and your citizens right to due process?

sounds like a long ass shot no?

or where am i missing key points?

hypothetical over

my point being, i feel like if the wyoming legislature decides to invoke minimum penalties for criminal trespass (and certainly, maybe, that in and of itself is a long shot) then so it will be, and little will be able to be done to change that (or prevent) if that's what they want to do, whether or not it seems to violate due process. that is, until the tide of the legislature turns again and decides it is indeed a petty cry baby private interest law that is unreasonable and unjust for it's citizens.

@VikingsGuy ? anyone? @Big Fin , @BuzzH ? @Ben Lamb ?

 

[TheTone]

Idaho changed its trespass laws 3-4 years ago now, it came close to being vetoed by the governor and if I remember correctly he didn’t sign it, just allowed it to become law with a statement that it needed cleaned up by future legislative sessions. Thus far no clean up has been done and I’ve heard of zero attempts to do so. It’s not horrible the way it currently is but does have some problems related to posting requirements, what a “reasonable person” would believe is private vs. public and scary civil/lawsuit potential

 

[Bam Bam]

As long as no one stepped on the (Complainant's) private property, this should NOT be ruled as trespassing. The complainant is clearly trying to block access to publicly owned lands.

 

[BuzzH]

Several great points - but this is one I really agree with and can't figure out from the landowner side. Landowners contending they can legally block public lands via corner cross have almost nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Ambiguity and threats are their best friend. If they lose this case, or it gets dismissed...they now will see a flood of people accessing via corner.

If the landowners prevail, given the available facts of this corner cross, I think it serves a great model for championing a whole base of recreationists...not just hunters...and while the political makeup of some states might not be friendly for the short-term, I think the tide of voter sentiment on public land access will turn into a tsunami.

Its been noted that there was a real-estate brochure for this ranch, that stated corner crossing was illegal according to a Supreme court case (IRRC the LEO sheep company case). But, what the real-estate brochure didn't point out is that case involved road at a corner, not crossing via foot.

IMO, the real-estate agents are, and always have been, a huge part of the problem with corner crossing. They make all kinds of claims to potential buyers that they will have "exclusive" use of public lands...you see it over and over and over again.

Real estate agents are pretty high on my list of those that I feel have a high propensity of being ethically and morally bankrupt when it comes to getting a sale. They constantly over-sell, and lets just keep it friendly by saying stretching the truth as part of their everyday business practice.

I'm sure what's happened in this case, is that the landowner believed his real estate agents BS propaganda to sell that ranch.

The part that bothers me is that the particular landowner still controls a massive amount of Elk Mountain...but I guess that's just not enough, they want it all.

What we're attempting to tell him is that the public still owns the public land and that he does not have exclusive use of all of our public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

so since civics class was like... a long time ago, and considering that it wouldn't have even covered a topic like this... someone help me out here:

let's run the hypothetical: case dismissed, private property interests throw the most massive and petty tantrum seen in the history of God's green earth, crawl on their hands and knees to the wyoming legislature to beg for clarity on corner cross with minimum financial penalty for a criminal trespass violation. the legislature coddles their poor little private property interests and revises statute.

okay, so then let's say the wyoming legislature ignored lobbyist and citizen concerns that this violates due process and passed it anyway.

so, here in colorado i believe the new red flag laws violate due process, so did nearly all of our county sheriffs and i'm sure many lobbyists, yet here we are, approaching year 2 of the law.

on one hand, if the state constitution says something is legal, then it's the law, and it stands, we have to move on, and the only hope is changing state law again. but on the other hand not if it violates federal law right? wouldn't the only recourse then be to get into a federal court where a judge can say your states petty little cry baby private interest law actually violates federal law and your citizens right to due process?

sounds like a long ass shot no?

or where am i missing key points?

hypothetical over

my point being, i feel like if the wyoming legislature decides to invoke minimum penalties for criminal trespass (and certainly, maybe, that in and of itself is a long shot) then so it will be, and little will be able to be done to change that (or prevent) if that's what they want to do, whether or not it seems to violate due process. that is, until the tide of the legislature turns again and decides it is indeed a petty cry baby private interest law that is unreasonable and unjust for it's citizens.

@VikingsGuy ? anyone? @Big Fin , @BuzzH ? @Ben Lamb ?

I agree with you that even if we did nothing in this case that in some States, the legislature will intervene...they've already tried in Montana a couple times.

Montana politics is about as bad as politics come IME, totally out of control and totally bought and paid for by those with deep pockets. The citizens of Montana had better start wising up, but all indications are to me, that those moving the needle are recent transplants that are anything but liberal Californians....I contend just the opposite. Montana will end up a playground for only the wealthy and the citizens fell for it...hook, line, sinker. I feel somewhat sorry for those in the minority that have tried their collective butts off to make people understand what is happening there, but their message falls on deaf ears. You can lead a horse to water...yada yada.

I believe in Wyoming, there would be some serious/massive backlash if a minimum civil trespass fine was associated with it.

 

[JM77]

my point being, i feel like if the wyoming legislature decides to invoke minimum penalties for criminal trespass (and certainly, maybe, that in and of itself is a long shot) then so it will be, and little will be able to be done to change that (or prevent) if that's what they want to do, whether or not it seems to violate due process. that is, until the tide of the legislature turns again and decides it is indeed a petty cry baby private interest law that is unreasonable and unjust for it's citizens.

@VikingsGuy ? anyone? @Big Fin , @BuzzH ? @Ben Lamb ?

This may have been a mistake on your part, but Wyoming has a maximum penalty, in statute, for criminal trespass, which you have to found guilty or plead guilty to be sentenced. I believe you meant civil trespass and the idea that a legislature could invoke a minimum penalty, which I believe currently does not exist anywhere in Wyoming law in relation to a civil action.

 

[TOGIE]

This may have been a mistake on your part, but Wyoming has a maximum penalty, in statute, for criminal trespass, which you have to found guilty or plead guilty to be sentenced. I believe you meant civil trespass and the idea that a legislature could invoke a minimum penalty, which I believe currently does not exist anywhere in Wyoming law in relation to a civil action.

no doubt some handful of mistakes in there.

but maybe forget the word invoke.

i'm just thinking purely about legislative revisions to law to include minimum penalties for - and yeah, i think i meant civil - trespass that could sprout from this situation (like randy alluded to having been discussed in montana) down the road and their likelihood sticking around if they do, not anything that is currently in law.

 

[RobG]

The main objection to the MT bill that set a $1500 minimum damages for civil trespassing was that someone could accidentally wander onto a property and get stung. On the other hand, corner crossing is intentional.

The question I have is why the MT or WY legislature doesn't make corner crossing illegal? Instead MT has been doing end-arounds like the generic $1500 minimum. They also tried to address it by making it illegal for drones to fly over private property with the intent of addressing corner crossing. Maybe they are afraid a specific law against won’t hold up.

 

[Muskeez]

I've been waiting for years for this type of case to come up. I am grateful to the 4 gentlemen and their supporters for bringing this to the publics attention.

 

[Pestcontrol]

The main objection to the MT bill that set a $1500 minimum damages for civil trespassing was that someone could accidentally wander onto a property and get stung. On the other hand, corner crossing is intentional.

The question I have is why the MT or WY legislature doesn't make corner crossing illegal? Instead MT has been doing end-arounds like the generic $1500 minimum. They also tried to address it by making it illegal for drones to fly over private property with the intent of addressing corner crossing. Maybe they are afraid a specific law against won’t hold up.

The legislature tried it several times in Wyoming. The most recent attempt by the legislature was in 2011 to make it Legal. The bill never even made it out of committee and was shot down. I don’t think Wyoming will pass a minimum Civil Trespass damage due to the unpopular momentum. I would bet this case gets dropped or dismissed but this certainly won’t be the end to the issue but it’s a good place to push back. https://wyoleg.gov/2011/Introduced/HB0171.pdf

 

[idahohuntr]

I've been waiting for years for this type of case to come up. I am grateful to the 4 gentlemen and their supporters for bringing this to the publics attention.

Agreed. Bigfin mentioned legal theory and legal research - which I think is important - but at the end of the day I think sportsman will be best served by rubber meeting the road via the courtroom. We can all opine and speculate, but lets get cases like this in front of some judges.

IMO, public land advocates have nothing to lose. We either win in the court of law...or we have a great story to share that will win in the court of public opinion (i.e., voters).

 

[elkduds]

I used to worry that legislation enabling corner crossing would be an illegal taking of private property rights, based on those rights outweighing public property access and rights. Now I believe public property rights have been illegally taken from us all by prohibition on corner crossing. If property rights are equal for all property owners, then public access should have equal legal traction to private property rights.

That's why I'm not a jurist.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Very interesting for sure. Thanks for all the info @BuzzH and I'd rather be fighting it in Wyoming than MT for reasons stated above. From my various discussions with WY locals over the years I got the impression that there's some general annoyance with the out of state landowners and how they conduct their business in Wyoming. This guy sounds like another in that growing group.

It's just time for the little guys like us to say enough on this BS. There were no damages to the landowner and I'm glad someone is taking a stand.

 

[El Jason]

Who all is up for making a second donation?

 

[Khunter]

Donated. A worthy cause.

 

[Kevin W]

Donated as well, hats off to the four guys that are going through this.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Civil trespass penalties would not allow due process and we all that is everyone's right. At least I've always thought that to be true!

Why would this violate due process, there are many matters outside of criminal law that have minimum damage awards? Due process would be found in the determination of the violation and whether additional damages would be due.