MoRina wrote:
Personally, if I found Brennan on my property, I would keep her!

haha

Stan Schutze wrote:
Why were the owners/demolition company so adamant?

Were they in the process of demolishing?

Was it a liability issue?

Probably this.

Speaking generically and not about this particular incident since there may be a lot we don't know, put yourself in the shoes of a property owner. A property could be unsafe for structural reasons, or hazardous materials... one of the most notorious superfund sites in the U.S. is routinely entered by people who cut holes in the fence, and although it's quite dangerous an untrained person who chose to ignore the signs wouldn't be able to tell, it looks like a bare dirt field with a few 55 gallon drums (for cleanup workers to dispose of the outer layer of their hazmat suits on the way out) scattered about. But the site was discovered when some local kids playing in rainwater running off the site received severe chemical burns.

In this case, maybe the foreman is a jerk. Or maybe he's under strict orders from the landowner, who is acting on the advice of his attorneys. We don't know.

Thanks to the OP for discussing in a mature and relatively non-judgmental manner. I give her credit for treating it as a learning experience.

cinema photography wrote:

Even if, can you still sue? It seems like you should be able to, also, this might be a media friendly case...

Yes, she can definitely sue, but the result will be her losing the suit and being out more attorney's fees.

B R E N N A N wrote:
Yes, this is long, sorry....

Back in January, I made plans to shoot with a photographer I had worked with before, at a location I had shot at dozens of times. I was turned onto the location by another photographer, and judging by the posts on urban exploration websites, it's a pretty popular shoot destination. I met the photographer there, his female assistant, and we also had another brand new model join us as well.



The building on the property is surrounding by fencing- as well as No Trespassing signs- so we parked on a public road, and avoided that area, choosing instead to walk around where a new bridge is being built on a public road. This area is super remote, and I have never heard so much as a car pass anywhere near anytime I've been there. We continued to walk, sometimes off the road, as the area is very post-apocalyptic and interesting, hoping we could see something to shoot. We had been there less than 15 minutes, and taken no images, when a construction worker informed us we were "trespassing, and the law has been called." We immediately apologized, not realizing it was private property, and left immediately, but the police were already there waiting for at the road. Again, we were very compliant and apologetic, but the property owners were insistent we be arrested and charged with second degree trespassing, which we were.



Making a long story short, we all 4 hired lawyers, went to trial since the property owner was not willing to drop the charges, and lost. We were all convicted on a Prayer For Judgement Continued (apparently not all states have this. It's basically "conviction light"), meaning I now have a criminal record. According to the property owner, there were signs posted, meeting the minimum NC requirement of having one 8x11 inch sign posted every 200 yards (absurd, but, okay).



I cannot afford the appeals process (today was my last day to appeal anyways), nor do I have the time, considering this has cost me multiple jobs already , and the courthouse is 90 minutes from my house, without traffic.



I did not post this for any remarks about how it was handled, either my myself, the attorneys, or other parties involved, but as a cautionary tale to all my fellow creatives. Just because you think it's public property, or don't see any signs posted, do NOT assume it is public- please get permission from the property owner; if you can't, don't shoot there.



Related note: I probably will not be up for shooting at random locations anymore lol.

Even though you knew you were trespassing, it sucks that it played out this way. The owner must have had prior problems or an insurance requirement that put them in a position where they felt they had to do this. A totally self-centered person would probably not want to take the time to show up in court. There's really no benefit to them unless there's some other issue going on separate from your trespassing.

Erin Holmes wrote:
I used to do a lot of nudes and otherwise in very risky places and have since wised up to how much trouble that had the potential to land me in. There's pretty much one photographer I would do that for now, and even then I'd be quite nervous.

Word. It can def get you in hot water.

B R E N N A N wrote:
Yes, this is long, sorry....

snip

at a location I had shot at dozens of times.

The building on the property is surrounding by fencing- as well as No Trespassing signs-

choosing instead to walk around where a new bridge is being built on a public road.

Sorry, but all of this screams "we should not shoot here without a permit."

I really dig cool locations too, but we don't always get what we want just because we want it.

I hear the stories all the time.  The models and photographers who get shooed away or arrested always cry foul, or worse, want to sue the owner for every stubbed toe.

If you don't own the property, assume someone does.  When did we stop teaching people not to touch stuff that doesn't belong to them without asking?

And when will those who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar just own up to it gracefully?

studio36uk wrote:
EDIT: Just for the sake of argument I looked at the statute. [G.S. 14-159.13. Second degree trespass.] There is NOTHING there about, as you claim was mentioned in your case and used to establish the trespass, some minimum posting requirement of 200 yards.  Can you clarify where that figure supposedly came into play? Some old case law maybe? Enquiring minds want to know!

How the statute actually reads:

"14-159.13 (a)(2) [premises of another] That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises."

not sure about her state but in cali fencing is something reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders and serves notice not to enter.  signs only serve as an additional reminder.

Gary Melton wrote:
People...get a grip!

It was PRIVATE property, not public.  Private property owners (even all of you, if you own property) have the right to keep people off of their land.

It evidently was a contruction site...meaning that they had to have liability insurance.  The insurance policy most likely very strictly stipulates that NO ONE THAT ISN'T AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IS ALLOWED ON THE SITE.  If they don't enforce the no trespassing, their policy premiums would probably go up steeply.

The OP mentioned that LOTS OF PEOPLE had been using the site (which means they were all trespassing) - so the owners probably felt very strongly about stemming the tide.

Hey - I love shooting in great, interesting places as much as the next person...but trespassing on private property IS illegal.  Get permission if you can, or don't do it...or if you do it without permission, realize that you are gambling on getting arrested, tried and convicted of a crime.

A key part of the fabric of this country has ALWAYS been the protection of private property rights...a tradition that the great majority of this country would definitely like to see continued.

Glenn WC wrote:
What more do you want to do? She's been convicted and will have to deal with this conviction forever. Is it wrong for her to come here and give us a bit of a heads up that we need to be diligent about staying off private property?

I live on a lake and have to deal with trespassers on a regular basis, but I don't believe that calling the cops on them is the right way to go unless they refuse to leave, keep coming back, vandalize my property, or something else beyond just being there.

Did you notice that my post started with "People..."?

My post was addressed to all those on here who are saying the property owner is a jerk...when IMHO, he was not (he was just enforcing his own rights).

As to the OP, I think it's great that she came on here to warn people that if you trespass, you can get caught, tried and convicted.  I aplaud her efforts...my post was not slamming her.

As I mentioned - this probably had a lot to do with it being a construction site and their having liability insurance.  Their insurance company likely REQUIRES them to enforce no trespassing.  And as the OP mentioned - lots of other people have been trespassing as well.  LIKE YOU...the owner was probably tired of running them off.

Gary Melton wrote:
My post was addressed to all those on here who are saying the property owner is a jerk...when IMHO, he was not (he was just enforcing his own rights).

I'm sorry, enforcing property rights is one thing, criminally charging someone who thought they were on public property and who immediately left is another.  Had she put up a stink, OK.  She didn't.  She admitted her mistake and immediately left.  I thought it was excessive, but ... the property owner was within his rights.  There is clearly a risk when you do a guerilla shoot.  We all know it.

MKPhoto wrote:
...By arrested do you mean handcuffed, put in a cruiser, fingerprinted, and mugshot taken, overnight in jail, bail posted - or essentially written a "ticket" and let go on the spot?

She said the were cuffed. The would have stayed overnight, but they posted bail money.

MC Grain wrote:

She said the were cuffed. The would have stayed overnight, but they posted bail money.

This was in Greg Kolack's story...

On the side, question to our Scandinavian friends, about the right to access a property; forgot the real term; would it apply to shooting? only in residential/woods/agricultural environment, or urban as well?

MC Grain wrote:

She said the were cuffed. The would have stayed overnight, but they posted bail money.

I think you are confusing her experience with mine...

Abbitt Photography wrote:
...The problem they face is that if they don't aggressively pursue trespassers, it opens the door for a person injured or killed on the property to argue they are indeed not trespassers but invitees, not by specific invitation, but by implication.  Typically a land owner has no duty to protect trespassers from harm, but does have a duty to protect invitees, so the liability they can incur by not aggressively enforcing trespass law can be quite notable.  In the case of a death or crippling injury, a lawsuit could easily be in the millions of dollars.

This is especially true of construction sites that have many dangers and often face lawsuits.  It's possible, they've learned their lesson the hard way and feel they have no choice but to pursue instances of trespass to the full extent of the law...

This is exactly what I'm talking about - to those taking the pics, it's about getting some cool shots...but to the landowner - it's about avoiding a possible lawsuit that could cost him millions.

As was mentioned - a lot of people were doing the same thing - and for some time.  The landowner was probably getting tired of taking the time and effort to shoo people off and decided to make a "statement" that would hopefully stop future trespassers.

Think about it - if any of you owned a piece of land (even fenced it in)...and people continually came onto that property uninvited - would you just do NOTHING about it?

In this particular case, we don't know exactly what the situation is with the landowner.  It's possible that there has already been multiple cases of vandalism and theft, and/or it's possible that there has already been an injury and a lawsuit (or even more than one injury and/or lawsuit).

Trespassing IS a crime and if you trespass, you ARE breaking the law and are subject to being caught and penalized.

Yeah, if someone just stumbled onto my property accidently - I'd likely just ask them to leave.  But if it was a case of an almost daily occurence by a lot of people and/or their were liability issues and/or a history of theft/vandalism/lawsuits - DAMN straight I'd have the trespassers arrested and prosecuted.

We don't know the whole story here.  The OP has shared her experience with everyone here to warn them of what CAN happen.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
It does sound extreme to me and I'm sorry to hear about the situation and the outcome for you, but to a degree I understand the property owner's stance as well.

The problem they face is that if they don't aggressively pursue trespassers, it opens the door for a person injured or killed on the property to argue they are indeed not trespassers but invitees, not by specific invitation, but by implication.  Typically a land owner has no duty to protect trespassers from harm, but does have a duty to protect invitees, so the liability they can incur by not aggressively enforcing trespass law can be quite notable.  In the case of a death or crippling injury, a lawsuit could easily be in the millions of dollars.

This is especially true of construction sites that have many dangers and often face lawsuits.  It's possible, they've learned their lesson the hard way and feel they have no choice but to pursue instances of trespass to the full extent of the law.

Again, it does seem an overly harsh reaction to me, but I do think it's important to understand the situation landowners and construction companies can find themselves in.

I can understand that, but wouldn't the act of kicking them off the property be enough to nullify that implication without having to press charges?  I don't know the law, but I would think so, at least logically. 

Of course, logic often has little to do with vindictive sonsofbitches who apparently feel compelled to use the law as a weapon. I'm really sorry you had to run into one of those, Brennan. 

p.s.  I'm with 291.  Send the dogs after him.  Though just to be safe, you might want to make sure it wouldn't potentially affect your PJC in some way.

barepixels wrote:
wow what a dick he is.

+1  Wow, must have read my mind for the exact words I'd use.

Fawnya Frolic wrote:
As other people have said before, I'm sorry about your misfortune - that sounds really unpleasant. How long does it take for a criminal record to disappear?

It doesn't

Loren Fiedler wrote:
I can understand that, but wouldn't the act of kicking them off the property be enough to nullify that implication without having to press charges?

If the landowner's objective is to spend his time mitigating the potential negative impacts of criminals while doing as little as possible to stop the criminal activity, then yes just kicking them of might be enough.  However if you were a landowner at risk of being sued, suffering repeated trespass and vandalism, and potentially being dropped by your insurance company, would you take the apologetic approach and do what ever you could to ensure the practice could continue?

Loren Fiedler wrote:
Of course, logic often has little to do with vindictive sonsofbitches who apparently feel compelled to use the law as a weapon.

To me, the vindictive sonsofbitches seem to be MM members who think trespass should be a right and the concept of private property should not apply to photographers.

B R E N N A N wrote:

Actually, that was the intended plan of action in the event we were found not guilty (which we fully expected, but alas....).

Your plan of action was to sue if you were found not guilty of a crime you knowingly committed?

B R E N N A N wrote:

It doesn't

Wait 6-12 months, petition the court to set aside the conviction & expunge your record.
Given the nature of the offense, & past criminal record, you have a better than average chance of that happening

B R E N N A N wrote:
It doesn't

That's right. Criminal records are only expunged by time if you become a criminal before you become a legal adult.  Adults are expected to be accountable for their actions, so an adult who becomes a criminal is stuck with it.

MKPhoto wrote:
Sorry to hear about such misfortune.

They part is tresspassing resulting in a criminal record. It is like a speeding ticket here, and honest belief is a valid defense.

So you got convicted, got record, but paid no fine under this Prayer for Judgement thing?

Yes, that seems ridiculous to me. Here, trespassing isn't even a crime.

BTHPhoto wrote:

That's right. Criminal records are only expunged by time if you become a criminal before you become a legal adult.  Adults are expected to be accountable for their actions, so an adult who becomes a criminal is stuck with it.

..unless pardon is granted...

MKPhoto wrote:

..unless pardon is granted...

Time doesn't grant pardons.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
I can understand that, but wouldn't the act of kicking them off the property be enough to nullify that implication without having to press charges?  I don't know the law, but I would think so, at least logically.

I find law is rarely black and white in that regard.   I think the less aggressive one is at pursuing trespassers, the stronger the case for implied consent becomes.  I don't think there is any magic line.  In the event of a law suit, the strength of that argument will in turn likely influence what settlement is reached.  Someone who consistently prosecutes trespassers is in a stronger position than one who occasionally kicks them out.  Prosecuting them to the full extent of the law, provides a legal record that they in fact discourage people to be on their land.  Stating you've yelled at trespassers has much less legal clout.

This land owners reactions certainly seem more aggressive than most, but I don't know the specifics including the history of the problems he's faced.

My point isn't to try to justify the extreme he went to, but rather just to point out the situation land owners can find themselves in and how treating trespassers lightly can increase their risk of litigation.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
These people gained absolutely nothing by going out of their way to spend the government's money to prosecute you.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I am sorry this happened to you -  and unfortunately not amazed at the lack of support by some here -  I think you deserve credit for posting your cautionary tale - it is a service to all

...

You're amazed at the lack of support here? I'm not

People may have missed the point in my posting, but hell, if I save a model or photographer or two the pain in the ass that this situation was for me, well, then good. I mean, I sure as shit could have done a lot better on my Friday night then typing this up to attempt to warn people, but you can't fix stupid. *shrugs*

Wild Side Studios wrote:

A court heard the evidence, weighed the credibility of witnesses and decided you were in fact trespassing.  Every property in America does not have no trespassing signs or fences.

You went in front of a district court judge - right?  Not a superior court judge where you could get a new jury trial.  Might cost you more, but might be worth it not to have a criminal record.