Speed traps on private property

[Emperor]

Think tank, research institute, moral compass... it's all right here on BS.

I've been here going on 4 years and I must admit, I've probably learned 3 or 4 things I never knew! That's a solid success rate!

 

[buttanic]

Read into it whatever you want.

http://www.trafficsafetygrantsillinois.org/default.aspx

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7956&context=etd

 

[Whitebread]

Think tank, research institute, moral compass... it's all right here on BS.

Nice, those work.

 

[Whitebread]

http://priceonomics.com/is-every-speed-limit-too-low/

Interesting read. I didnt vet any of it sources authors nothing. I just read the article. It seems to be full of not-so-common sense and it seems to fit my ideology.

 

[Barry J]

The guy on I55 this afternoon with the freezer in the back of the truck doing 40mph was way more dangerous than the few vehicles that passed me doing 85.

 

[sliguns]

The guy on I55 this afternoon with the freezer in the back of the truck doing 40mph was way more dangerous than the few vehicles that passed me doing 85.

tru dat

 

[Persecutor]

So after all this interesting discussion and postulation.... The answer to the OP's question is...Yes, the police may run speed limit enforcement on private property without the owner's permission and over their objection. This answer does not address the issue of "should" and it's political ramifications. Any speeding citations issued in this situation are valid and enforceable. Private property rights trump almost everything else, but public safety is one of the few concepts that win over property rights. The Constitution protects us from Unreasonable searches and seizures, but a LEO on your property running radar/lidar is not a search or seizure of your person or protected property. I know some of you may not like this answer and may disagree, but it is the current state of the law.

 

[Whitebread]

So after all this interesting discussion and postulation.... The answer to the OP's question is...Yes, the police may run speed limit enforcement on private property without the owner's permission and over their objection. This answer does not address the issue of "should" and it's political ramifications. Any speeding citations issued in this situation are valid and enforceable. Private property rights trump almost everything else, but public safety is one of the few concepts that win over property rights. The Constitution protects us from Unreasonable searches and seizures, but a LEO on your property running radar/lidar is not a search or seizure of your person or protected property. I know some of you may not like this answer and may disagree, but it is the current state of the law.

You are wrong if the officer is not persuing a suspect, or responding to a possible crime in progress the property owner has every right to notify the offender (badge or no badge) and post the property. If once properly notified an officer enters the property with out probable cause its criminal tresspassing. I will ignore social and political ramifications.

Now enforcing your prohibition may be difficult.

Forcing a private property owner to harbor police sounds quite simular to a prehibition of forcing private property owner to house soldiers aka the 3rd ammendment.

If an officer can use the church parking lot in opposition to the church's wishes then reasonably he could steal my truck to persue any speeders because "private property rights dont trump public safety".

 

[Persecutor]

You may disagree, and attempt to use faulty logic to take the concept to an extreme, but what I stated is accurate under current law. "Posting" property is no longer required for the criminal trespass statute to apply. However, that statute does not apply to duly commissioned law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties. There is no requirement of probable cause for them to enter private property, only to search and/or seize and/or arrest. As far as my public safety statement, I was simply providing the justification that has been used by the courts and the legislature to set forth the above rule of law.
And it does not require pursuit of a suspect or responding to a possible crime on the premises (which would also equal probable cause)

 

[alpinehyperlite]

This is what gets me about the dumbass mindset of many many derps in this site. They have the mindset that "I can carry my gun onto anyone's private property because it is my right." But as soon as something else is discussed about property rights and involves LEO, the same people spout off saying that the property owners rights come first. But who am I to judge, concealed is concealed and all that bull ****.

 

[pyreaux]

Yay look at all the Internet lawyers!

 

[Whitebread]

This is what gets me about the dumbass mindset of many many derps in this site. They have the mindset that "I can carry my gun onto anyone's private property because it is my right." But as soon as something else is discussed about property rights and involves LEO, the same people spout off saying that the property owners rights come first. But who am I to judge, concealed is concealed and all that bull ****.

Wrong private property is private property yours and my rights end where our neighbors begin. Another words your property your rules.

 

[Persecutor]

I'm not an internet lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. Hell I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express recently. But....I have been practicing criminal law for 20 years and I teach search and seizure law to law enforcement and to other attorneys.
I do not post to argue, only to inform. I don't like it when good people get themselves in bad situations due to misunderstanding legal concepts. So I sincerely hope my posts here do not come across as disrespectful. I just want to help get accurate information out there so good people like the members of this forum don't meet me in my courtroom.

 

[MOTOR51]

I'm not an internet lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. Hell I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express recently. But....I have been practicing criminal law for 20 years and I teach search and seizure law to law enforcement and to other attorneys.
I do not post to argue, only to inform. I don't like it when good people get themselves in bad situations due to misunderstanding legal concepts. So I sincerely hope my posts here do not come across as disrespectful. I just want to help get accurate information out there so good people like the members of this forum don't meet me in my courtroom.

You do realize that certain people on here know more than you even though it's what you do for a living? Please refrain from actually knowing what you are talking about because it really doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alpinehyperlite]

You do realize that certain people on here know more than you even though it's what you do for a living? Please refrain from actually knowing what you are talking about because it really doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I laughed.

 

[charlie12]

You are wrong if the officer is not persuing a suspect, or responding to a possible crime in progress the property owner has every right to notify the offender (badge or no badge) and post the property. If once properly notified an officer enters the property with out probable cause its criminal tresspassing. I will ignore social and political ramifications.

Now enforcing your prohibition may be difficult.

Forcing a private property owner to harbor police sounds quite simular to a prehibition of forcing private property owner to house soldiers aka the 3rd ammendment.

If an officer can use the church parking lot in opposition to the church's wishes then reasonably he could steal my truck to persue any speeders because "private property rights dont trump public safety".

You could just read the law and save time. LEO can be there

E. The following persons may enter or remain upon the structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property, of another:
(1) A duly commissioned law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78584

 

[Whitebread]

You could just read the law and save time. LEO can be there

E. The following persons may enter or remain upon the structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property, of another:
(1) A duly commissioned law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78584

The keywords there are "in the performance of his duties"

His duties do not require him to use private property as a staging area to conduct traffic enforcement.

Now I'm no fool I said before enforcing this sort of prohibition would be extremely difficult. Chances are no officer would issue another office a citation for this and no DA would presue such a petty charge on an officer but what is right is right. Just because in practice it would be next to imposible to accomplish doesnt mean your private property rights should be forfieted to unlawful invasions. Plain and simple that would be an abuse of his power.

Now if one were industrious enough one could posibly bring federal civil rights charges, but the most simple solution would be build a gate.

 

[sliguns]

The answer to the OP's question is...Yes...Private property rights trump almost everything else, but public safety is one of the few concepts that win over property rights. The Constitution protects us from Unreasonable searches and seizures, but a LEO on your property running radar/lidar is not a search or seizure of your person or protected property.

Land of the Free!!!!!!!

 

[Emperor]

You could just read the law and save time. LEO can be there

E. The following persons may enter or remain upon the structure, watercraft, movable or immovable property, of another:
(1) A duly commissioned law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78584

If this law interprets that a LEO can block my driveway to run a speed check, I am not buying it! And as for the OP, if no one looked into it; it's all moot anyway.

Didn't anyone bother to wonder that particular cop may have just decided to use the church lot on his own, because it was convenient and safe, and provided good concealment? You know how sneaky those radar devils can be.

 

[charlie12]

The keywords there are "in the performance of his duties"

His duties do not require him to use private property as a staging area to conduct traffic enforcement.

Now I'm no fool I said before enforcing this sort of prohibition would be extremely difficult. Chances are no officer would issue another office a citation for this and no DA would presue such a petty charge on an officer but what is right is right. Just because in practice it would be next to imposible to accomplish doesnt mean your private property rights should be forfieted to unlawful invasions. Plain and simple that would be an abuse of his power.

Now if one were industrious enough one could posibly bring federal civil rights charges, but the most simple solution would be build a gate.

Enforcing the traffic law is part of his duty