http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/nissan-leaf-owner-arrested-taking-5-cents-energy-170034388.html (http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/nissan-leaf-owner-arrested-taking-5-cents-energy-170034388.html)
Warning should've been sufficient, seems like the police department is overstaffed if they were to take time to actually arrest someone for this.
If the victim wants charges, then the amount of the theft is immaterial and the officer did his job.
Extremely disturbing esp. considering the arrest came 11 days after the "crime." Hope the "criminal" takes it to court. Not only can't I imagine a jury ever convicting seems it will be impossible to prove theft unless the LEO had a current clamp meter or the like and actually verified real-time that the car was "stealing" electricity. My hunch is the school, or whoever is in charge, won't press charges.
Unless there's more to the story I find this to be a very poor arrest. This could have simply been handled right there and then without further issue. Stupid.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 04, 2013, 08:29:18 PM
Extremely disturbing esp. considering the arrest came 11 days after the "crime." Hope the "criminal" takes it to court. Not only can't I imagine a jury ever convicting seems it will be impossible to prove theft unless the LEO had a current clamp meter or the like and actually verified real-time that the car was "stealing" electricity. My hunch is the school, or whoever is in charge, won't press charges.
That's what I was wondering; how can he even be sure the car was charging?
Being plugged in means nothing unless there's actually a current draw, and if there is, how's he going to measure it.
Even a regular ammeter is just going to give you draw at the moment; to proof theft, you have to prove he's stealing energy, and you can't really do that without measuring the watt-hours that he took.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 04, 2013, 08:29:18 PM
Extremely disturbing esp. considering the arrest came 11 days after the "crime." Hope the "criminal" takes it to court. Not only can't I imagine a jury ever convicting seems it will be impossible to prove theft unless the LEO had a current clamp meter or the like and actually verified real-time that the car was "stealing" electricity. My hunch is the school, or whoever is in charge, won't press charges.
. Have you ever heard of Due Process? Most likely, just going by what was written, if it took that long someone called to report the "crime.". Many departments have limited officer discretion when it comes to seeking charges on complaints filed by citizens. The officer probably had to write a report and forward it to the prosecutor for review, happens all the time.
And, the law doesn't always have to prove an actual larceny occured, merely that there was a crime in progress and that the suspect had "intent" to commit a crime, in this case; larceny.
Well, the City Manager and Police Chief issued this statement
QuoteWe received a 911 call advising that someone was plugged into the power outlet behind the middle school. The responding officer located the vehicle in the rear of the building at the kitchen loading dock up against the wall with a cord run to an outlet. The officer spent some time trying to determine whose vehicle it was. It was unlocked and he eventually began looking through the interior after verifying it did not belong to the school system.
The officer, his marked patrol vehicle and the electric vehicle were all in clear view of the tennis courts. Eventually, a man on the courts told the officer that the man playing tennis with him owned the vehicle. The officer went to the courts and interviewed the vehicle owner. The officer's initial incident report gives a good indication of how difficult and argumentative the individual was to deal with. He made no attempt to apologize or simply say oops and he wouldn't do it again. Instead he continued being argumentative, acknowledged he did not have permission and then accused the officer of having damaged his car door. The officer told him that was not true and that the vehicle and existing damage was already on his vehicles video camera from when he drove up.
Given the uncooperative attitude and accusations of damage to his vehicle, the officer chose to document the incident on an incident report. The report was listed as misdemeanor theft by taking. The officer had no way of knowing how much power had been consumed, how much it cost nor how long it had been charging.
The report made its way to Sgt Ford's desk for a follow up investigation. He contacted the middle school and inquired of several administrative personnel whether the individual had permission to use power. He was advised no. Sgt. Ford showed a photo to the school resource officer who recognized Mr. Kamooneh. Sgt Ford was further advised that Mr. Kamooneh had previously been advised he was not allowed on the school tennis courts without permission from the school . This was apparently due to his interfering with the use of the tennis courts previously during school hours.
Based upon the totality of these circumstances and without any expert advice on the amount of electricity that may have been used, Sgt Ford signed a theft warrant. The warrant was turned over to the DeKalb Sheriffs Dept for service because the individual lived in Decatur, not Chamblee. This is why he was arrested at a later time.
I am sure that Sgt. Ford was feeling defensive when he said a theft is a theft and he would do it again. Ultimately, Sgt. Ford did make the decision to pursue the theft charges, but the decision was based on Mr. Kamooneh having been advised that he was not allowed on the property without permission. Had he complied with that notice none of this would have occurred. Mr. Kamooneh's son is not a student at the middle school and he was not the one playing tennis. Mr. Kamooneh was taking lessons himself.
Looks like the guy will be getting off the hook then since they issued a warrant for theft even though the problem was trespassing and not theft.
But since the guy was taking a lesson, I wonder if the instructor has permission to give tennis lessons to the facility. And if so, does that also give some sort of implied consent for limited use of the resources at the facility, similar to using a water fountain.. or would drinking from an water fountain be considered theft as well?
Quote from: hounddog on December 05, 2013, 10:55:50 AM
. Have you ever heard of Due Process? Most likely, just going by what was written, if it took that long someone called to report the "crime.". Many departments have limited officer discretion when it comes to seeking charges on complaints filed by citizens. The officer probably had to write a report and forward it to the prosecutor for review, happens all the time.
And, the law doesn't always have to prove an actual larceny occured, merely that there was a crime in progress and that the suspect had "intent" to commit a crime, in this case; larceny.
According to the story it wasn't a complaint filed by a citizen; an LEO rolled upon the "thief" and began asking questions, and concluded theft occurred.
The underpinning of intent, is, well, intent. Did the Leaf owner intend to or know he was "stealing" electricity? Tens of millions of people plug AC devices into wall outlets in the US every day without asking the property owner - airport, coffee shop, restaurant, library, etc., etc. - without ever getting accused for theft or larceny.
Quote from: hounddog on December 05, 2013, 10:55:50 AM
. Have you ever heard of Due Process? Most likely, just going by what was written, if it took that long someone called to report the "crime.". Many departments have limited officer discretion when it comes to seeking charges on complaints filed by citizens. The officer probably had to write a report and forward it to the prosecutor for review, happens all the time.
And, the law doesn't always have to prove an actual larceny occured, merely that there was a crime in progress and that the suspect had "intent" to commit a crime, in this case; larceny.
Waste of time.
My good hunch is there is more to the story. The Leaf owner kinda looks like one of those militant whiny green liberal types. He probably gave the LEO a bunch of guff and otherwise forced the situation.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:41:56 AM
According to the story it wasn't a complaint filed by a citizen; an LEO rolled upon the "thief" and began asking questions, and concluded theft occurred.
The underpinning of intent, is, well, intent. Did the Leaf owner intend to or know he was "stealing" electricity? Tens of millions of people plug AC devices into wall outlets in the US every day without asking the property owner - airport, coffee shop, restaurant, library, etc., etc. - without ever getting accused for theft or larceny.
The thing is, people seem to think EVs draws a lot more power from your typical 120V outlet and probably equate to $20-$30 worth of power draw from that short period.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:59:57 AM
My good hunch is there is more to the story. The Leaf owner kinda looks like one of those militant whiny green liberal types. He probably gave the LEO a bunch of guff and otherwise forced the situation.
That's my guess. Most cops would be happy telling the guy to unplug the car and carrying on. "Sir, you need to please unplug that car". "What!" "Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!"
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 12:03:05 PM
That's my guess. Most cops would be happy telling the guy to unplug the car and carrying on. "Sir, you need to please unplug that car". "What!" "Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!"
Yeah, it's likely poorly handled by the owner which lead to the response by the officer. In the end, the charges for theft will be dropped but who knows what other additional problems this may lead...
One could argue that an outlet at a public school can reasonably be assumed to be put there for the use of the public, unless its secured somehow or labeled for "authorized use only."
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:59:57 AM
My good hunch is there is more to the story. The Leaf owner kinda looks like one of those militant whiny green liberal types. He probably gave the LEO a bunch of guff and otherwise forced the situation.
Probably. Which is why I'm always glad to let the assholes go to court so these things can be figured out.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 05, 2013, 01:31:35 PM
One could argue that an outlet at a public school can reasonably be assumed to be put there for the use of the public, unless its secured somehow or labeled for "authorized use only."
Yeah, this guy's tax dollars probably pay for the electricity at said school.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:59:57 AM
My good hunch is there is more to the story. The Leaf owner kinda looks like one of those militant whiny green liberal types. He probably gave the LEO a bunch of guff and otherwise forced the situation.
That's a dangerous statement
Quote from: CALL_911 on December 05, 2013, 02:35:50 PM
Yeah, this guy's tax dollars probably pay for the electricity at said school.
He probably helps pay for the desks, computers and everything else in there but I don't think it's ok to take those.
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
He probably helps pay for the desks, computers and everything else in there but I don't think it's ok to take those.
Those are locked up, and behind closed doors.
This, as I understand it, was out in the open, in a publicly accessible spot near a publicly used tennis court.
It would be closer to comparing this to the use of a park bench or drinking fountain.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 05, 2013, 04:05:59 PM
Those are locked up, and behind closed doors.
This, as I understand it, was out in the open, in a publicly accessible spot near a publicly used tennis court.
It would be closer to comparing this to the use of a park bench or drinking fountain.
Using the drinking fountain would be considered stealing....
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 05, 2013, 04:05:59 PM
Those are locked up, and behind closed doors.
This, as I understand it, was out in the open, in a publicly accessible spot near a publicly used tennis court.
It would be closer to comparing this to the use of a park bench or drinking fountain.
Like I said, it's silly. But I am not sure if an accessible outlet implies public use.
I've said this before but lets wait till many more people have electric cars and people start hanging power strips out their office windows.
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 06:08:40 PM
Like I said, it's silly. But I am not sure if an accessible outlet implies public use.
In common law terms I think it does. Everywhere I go - Starbucks, library, airport, tire shop (today), etc. - people (including me) use "public" outlets even if not explicitly marked or given explicit permission.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 06:47:46 PM
In common law terms I think it does. Everywhere I go - Starbucks, library, airport, tire shop (today), etc. - people (including me) use "public" outlets even if not explicitly marked or given explicit permission.
You're probably right. As more people use other's power to charge cars, etc, this will become a larger issue.
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 06:49:45 PM
You're probably right. As more people use other's power to charge cars, etc, this will become a larger issue.
The practical solution would be 5 amp breakers built into the receptacles themselves.
THe legal answer may be a more specific understanding of what constitutes reasonable use.
Quote from: CALL_911 on December 05, 2013, 02:35:50 PMYeah, this guy's tax dollars probably pay for the electricity at said school.
They probably pay for the gas that goes in county vehicles but that doesn't give him the right to go out to the county fuel pumps and fill er up. That's essentially what he was doing here...fueling his vehicle on somebody else's dime. By your opinion, it would be ok for be to go out and fill my truck up at the county fuel pump as long as it wasn't locked up or otherwise marked that it wasn't open for public use, even though pretty much all of us would know that's stealing. Doesn't make alot of sense, does it? Just because it's bought with tax dollars doesn't make it open to public use.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:59:57 AM
My good hunch is there is more to the story. The Leaf owner kinda looks like one of those militant whiny green liberal types. He probably gave the LEO a bunch of guff and otherwise forced the situation.
Saw him him interviewed on the local news, and your hunch exactly matches my hunch. He oozed self-righteous entitleded douchery. I got the old "more to this than mets the eye" alarm bell. Candidate for a night stick to the solar plexus
Quote from: bing_oh on December 05, 2013, 09:27:30 PM
They probably pay for the gas that goes in county vehicles but that doesn't give him the right to go out to the county fuel pumps and fill er up. That's essentially what he was doing here...fueling his vehicle on somebody else's dime. By your opinion, it would be ok for be to go out and fill my truck up at the county fuel pump as long as it wasn't locked up or otherwise marked that it wasn't open for public use, even though pretty much all of us would know that's stealing. Doesn't make alot of sense, does it? Just because it's bought with tax dollars doesn't make it open to public use.
Is an open receptacle in a public park not reasonably assumed to be for public use? Would a guy who plugged his phone charger into that same plug, or his radio, or his electric wheelchair be thought to be stealing as well?
Quote from: Morris Minor on December 05, 2013, 09:52:57 PM
Saw him him interviewed on the local news, and your hunch exactly matches my hunch. He oozed self-righteous entitleded douchery. I got the old "more to this than mets the eye" alarm bell. Candidate for a night stick to the solar plexus
I knew there had to be something else that brought on the situation...
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 06:08:40 PM
Like I said, it's silly. But I am not sure if an accessible outlet implies public use.
I have accessible outlets at my house. If someone plugged into mine, I would find a problem with it.
And the whole, "my taxes pay for blah blah blah" argument is as dumb as the day is long when it comes to excusing ass-hattery.
Quote from: S204STi on December 05, 2013, 11:21:52 PM
I have accessible outlets at my house. If someone plugged into mine, I would find a problem with it.
And the whole, "my taxes pay for blah blah blah" argument is as dumb as the day is long when it comes to excusing ass-hattery.
Your house isn't public property, nor is it private property that is in normal use by the public unless you happen to live in a mall.
That argument is invalid.
And the guy does seem to be a douchenozzle, but that's not illegal.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 05, 2013, 10:21:44 PMIs an open receptacle in a public park not reasonably assumed to be for public use? Would a guy who plugged his phone charger into that same plug, or his radio, or his electric wheelchair be thought to be stealing as well?
Sounded like it was a school, not a public park. Schools, like most other buildings, have a need for exterior electrical sockets...that doesn't mean they're there for the general use of the public. And, technically yes, all those other people would be stealing as well.
The guy should publicly apologize. He uses the government to forcibly extract cash from taxpayers to pay for the credits to subsidize his car. Ungrateful for that, he steals electricity from the local school system while trespassing on their property.
Soon the government be claiming they own the power that people get from solar panels.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2013, 12:24:49 AM
And the guy does seem to be a douchenozzle, but that's not illegal.
There should be a law against it.
Quote from: S204STi on December 06, 2013, 12:52:36 PM
There should be a law against it.
What do we do with the douchenozzles?
Quote from: sparkplug on December 06, 2013, 12:33:13 PM
Soon the government be claiming they own the power that people get from solar panels.
Some states already fine people for collecting rainwater off their roofs.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2013, 01:43:11 PM
Some states already fine people for collecting rainwater off their roofs.
They even threw a guy in jail for collecting rain water too.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2013, 01:43:11 PM
Some states already fine people for collecting rainwater off their roofs.
:hmm:
How can this be a thing?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 06, 2013, 07:08:34 AM
Sounded like it was a school, not a public park. Schools, like most other buildings, have a need for exterior electrical sockets...that doesn't mean they're there for the general use of the public. And, technically yes, all those other people would be stealing as well.
I believe there's some similarity in the laws; school playgrounds after all have been fair game for after hours playground uses for decades in most places.
And while I certainly don't think its widespread, a local park here (Rochester Hills Mi) recently added convenience outlets next to park benches expressly for the use of park patrons. There's no sign saying though, but that it what they were installed for.
As I said, it is arguable that the car owner had a reasonable expectation that the plugs in that area where indeed meant for the convenience of the public.
We've established he's an arsehole. That's besides the point.
Whether he was asked to not be at that tennis court before or not is also besides the point, as he wasn't charged with tresspassing or anything related to him being there against the law.
Also, as I understand it, the cop opened the unattended vehicle's unlocked door, and then rifled through the glovebox until he found the registration and an address and then informed the owber he'd be being charged later. This seems questionable legally.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 06, 2013, 02:04:59 PM
How can this be a thing?
The rain belongs to the state- you collecting it 20 gallonsor so of it in a barrel and then sprinkling it on your own plants later on at your own schedule without paying taxes on it not only upsets the entire ecological balance of the region, but it steals money from the state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?_r=0)
And you have this
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/ (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/)
:lol:
I don't see the problem with a man made lake.
But.. if Oregon claims all water is public property, would they be responsible for flood damage since it would be damage done by public property..
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:41:56 AM
According to the story it wasn't a complaint filed by a citizen; an LEO rolled upon the "thief" and began asking questions, and concluded theft occurred.
It was clearly written with an anti-LE slant, and, had you read the statement from the Chief just above your post you would have seen that there was in fact, a citizen complaint via 911.
By the way, asking questions is often how LE determines a crime is has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. It is call an "interview." :ohyeah:
QuoteThe underpinning of intent, is, well, intent. Did the Leaf owner intend to or know he was "stealing" electricity? Tens of millions of people plug AC devices into wall outlets in the US every day without asking the property owner - airport, coffee shop, restaurant, library, etc., etc. - without ever getting accused for theft or larceny.
[sigh]
Quote from: NomisR on December 06, 2013, 05:18:10 PM
And you have this
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/ (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/)
:lol:
I don't see the problem with a man made lake.
But.. if Oregon claims all water is public property, would they be responsible for flood damage since it would be damage done by public property..
That's a lot of water! No way that's needed for just this guy. It's also in a part of Oregon with a history of huge water rights issues.
"911, this line is recorded, what is your emergency?"
"Yes, I am at the school and there is a man that plugged his car into the electrical outlet at the side of the building. PLEASE! Send someone immediately! Hurry!"
Quote from: Catman on December 07, 2013, 06:37:20 AM
"911, this line is recorded, what is your emergency?"
"Yes, I am at the school and there is a man that plugged his car into the electrical outlet at the side of the building. PLEASE! Send someone immediately! Hurry!"
I have to imagine a lot of 911 calls are just fucking stupid.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 11:59:57 AM
My good hunch is there is more to the story. The Leaf owner kinda looks like one of those militant whiny green liberal types. He probably gave the LEO a bunch of guff and otherwise forced the situation.
My guess is that you hit the nail right on the head.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 07, 2013, 06:39:13 AM
I have to imagine a lot of 911 calls are just fucking stupid.
Not long after I left DPD and went to the township (bedroom community to greater Detroit) I was sent to one of the elementary schools for an assault:
Two 2-3rd graders had taken sticks and were hitting each other in anger with them. Both mothers DEMANDED the other child be arrested and taken to jail. They were so out of control I nearly had to arrest them.
They both filed complaints against me for not arresting the other kids with my PD, prosecutors office and even complained to a judge. One even hired a lawyer who sent a very tough sounding letter to my agency.
Many of the calls 911 get are just asinine.
Quote from: hounddog on December 07, 2013, 08:25:49 AM
Not long after I left DPD and went to the township (bedroom community to greater Detroit) I was sent to one of the elementary schools for an assault:
Two 2-3rd graders had taken sticks and were hitting each other in anger with them. Both mothers DEMANDED the other child be arrested and taken to jail. They were so out of control I nearly had to arrest them.
They both filed complaints against me for not arresting the other kids with my PD, prosecutors office and even complained to a judge. One even hired a lawyer who sent a very tough sounding letter to my agency.
Many of the calls 911 get are just asinine.
In my town, one guy called 911 to demand that the first department drain his hot tub. Others called because their cable service wasn't working. Idiots.
Quote from: NomisR on December 06, 2013, 05:18:10 PM
And you have this
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/ (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/08/16/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property/)
:lol:
I don't see the problem with a man made lake.
But.. if Oregon claims all water is public property, would they be responsible for flood damage since it would be damage done by public property..
Generally speaking, water is not "owned" by anyone, however it is "held in the public trust" by a state government agency. If you have a home on the water, you have to ask the state for either a riparian lease or grant in order to drive piles, build a dock and run electricity.
But generally speaking this applies only to open bodies of water that meet certain benchmarks (navigable, tidal, covered under CWA, etc.). In my town we have a privately-owned lake, but nobody knows who owns it since no taxes have been paid on it in about 70 years and they can't track down the living relatives of the former owner. In this case, the town
doesn't want responsibility for the lake because they'd have to maintain it, clean it and they'd probably on the hook to build a park there to current safety specifications.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 06, 2013, 04:19:39 PM
The rain belongs to the state- you collecting it 20 gallonsor so of it in a barrel and then sprinkling it on your own plants later on at your own schedule without paying taxes on it not only upsets the entire ecological balance of the region, but it steals money from the state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?_r=0)
:confused:
I think the other issue with this case is that they likely don't want to set a precedent whereby it's okay to "steal" electricity from public buildings. I can picture, if these vehicles take off in popularity, a line of cars outside municipal buildings and schools with people waiting to charge their cars for free.
The part of this case that disturbs me a bit is the officer opening up the guy's car and rifling through his glove box. Couldn't he just have run the plate to determine the owner? If the cop wanted to unplug the car and have it towed, fine, but I don't like the idea of needless fishing expeditions.
A lot of these cases are written to make them sound extreme when they are really not. We've had cases in New Jersey where people have been arrested for stealing sand from the beach. People made fun of the laws and really high fines for sand stealing, but after Hurricane Sandy, those laws prevented construction contractors from stealing sand the taxpayers paid for (to create temporary dunes) to use in their construction projects.
Quote from: Rupert on December 06, 2013, 11:39:37 PM
That's a lot of water! No way that's needed for just this guy. It's also in a part of Oregon with a history of huge water rights issues.
I think one of the article says the guy has 3 lakes with fishes in it... i'm still trying to understand why there's a need to jail someone over a manmade lake...
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2013, 03:32:25 PM
I think the other issue with this case is that they likely don't want to set a precedent whereby it's okay to "steal" electricity from public buildings. I can picture, if these vehicles take off in popularity, a line of cars outside municipal buildings and schools with people waiting to charge their cars for free.
The part of this case that disturbs me a bit is the officer opening up the guy's car and rifling through his glove box. Couldn't he just have run the plate to determine the owner? If the cop wanted to unplug the car and have it towed, fine, but I don't like the idea of needless fishing expeditions.
A lot of these cases are written to make them sound extreme when they are really not. We've had cases in New Jersey where people have been arrested for stealing sand from the beach. People made fun of the laws and really high fines for sand stealing, but after Hurricane Sandy, those laws prevented construction contractors from stealing sand the taxpayers paid for (to create temporary dunes) to use in their construction projects.
So is it really stupid laws or simply stupid LE and prosecutors taking existing laws to the extreme?
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 06:47:46 PM
In common law terms I think it does. Everywhere I go - Starbucks, library, airport, tire shop (today), etc. - people (including me) use "public" outlets even if not explicitly marked or given explicit permission.
All those are places of business held open to the general public. Schools generally aren't. Even public schools (K-12) control access and require visitors/guests/etc... to check in at the front desk.
I think we can put some more context around the analogy. Using an outlet at the airport to charge your phone? Probably alright. Using your neighbor's water hose to water your garden? Probably not alright. I think the school's power outlets might fall more towards the latter.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2013, 01:50:02 PM
All those are places of business held open to the general public. Schools generally aren't. Even public schools (K-12) control access and require visitors/guests/etc... to check in at the front desk.
I think we can put some more context around the analogy. Using an outlet at the airport to charge your phone? Probably alright. Using your neighbor's water hose to water your garden? Probably not alright. I think the school's power outlets might fall more towards the latter.
Well, what about using the school's water fountain to fill up your sports bottle? That's actually more similar to the outlet scenario than the neighbor's water hose.
Quote from: NomisR on December 09, 2013, 02:05:34 PM
Well, what about using the school's water fountain to fill up your sports bottle? That's actually more similar to the outlet scenario than the neighbor's water hose.
What about setting up a hydroelectric dam in the hallway where the fountain is, then plugging the Leaf into the dam generators?
Quote from: Catman on December 09, 2013, 02:30:55 PM
What about setting up a hydroelectric dam in the hallway where the fountain is, then plugging the Leaf into the dam generators?
I guess if you're not taking the water, it would be kinda like using a toilet so it'll be ok...
now where do i find myself a portable hydroelectric dam I can carry around with me?
Or do this..
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/toilet-tech-power-generator-turns-wastewater-electricity (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/toilet-tech-power-generator-turns-wastewater-electricity)
Quote from: NomisR on December 09, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
So is it really stupid laws or simply stupid LE and prosecutors taking existing laws to the extreme?
That's a case-by-case basis type of thing. Under normal circumstances, maybe this would be a LEO taking the law to an extreme. But if you have a belligerent person on your hands, what choice do you have? If this guy said, "oh, hey, sorry I didn't know it was a problem, I'll unplug the car," the cop probably would've bid him a good day.
Quote from: NomisR on December 09, 2013, 02:05:34 PM
Well, what about using the school's water fountain to fill up your sports bottle? That's actually more similar to the outlet scenario than the neighbor's water hose.
The water fountains are expressly placed for public usage. The outlets are not.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 11, 2013, 01:46:34 AM
The water fountains are expressly placed for public usage. The outlets are not.
How can we be sure?
Lots of places now have convenience outlets.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 02:04:01 AM
How can we be sure?
Lots of places now have convenience outlets.
Yeah, I know, and maybe there needs to be a local ordinance that codifies it. But some things should be common-sense. Assholes who own Nissan Leaves think that because they're "saving the environment" they are entitled to things including, apparently, electricity I as a taxpayer might pay for at BOE-owned buildings.
As has been said already, what's the difference between this clown charging up using a BOE-owned outlet or me swinging my SUV around to the BOE school bus fuel pumps to fill up the tank?
Quote from: TurboDan on December 11, 2013, 02:23:27 AM
Yeah, I know, and maybe there needs to be a local ordinance that codifies it. But some things should be common-sense. Assholes who own Nissan Leaves think that because they're "saving the environment" they are entitled to things including, apparently, electricity I as a taxpayer might pay for at BOE-owned buildings.
As has been said already, what's the difference between this clown charging up using a BOE-owned outlet or me swinging my SUV around to the BOE school bus fuel pumps to fill up the tank?
The difference is that one is widely accepted to be theft and the other is questionable.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 03:14:28 AMThe difference is that one is widely accepted to be theft and the other is questionable.
"Widely accepted to be theft" isn't generally part of the law.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2013, 06:06:05 AM
"Widely accepted to be theft" isn't generally part of the law.
Mens Rea is though. If it is arguable that the "thief" did not perceive that he was doing anything wrong, then it is also arguable that he cannot be convicted.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 06:09:33 AMMens Rea is though. If it is arguable that the "thief" did not perceive that he was doing anything wrong, then it is also arguable that he cannot be convicted.
Depends on the statute, actually. There's more than one mental state under the law. Some laws have the mental state of "knowingly" as a part of the statute, while others have "recklessly" or "negligently." You could also easily argue that he plugged his little toy car into a socket that didn't belong to him, taking electricity that a person of normal mental faculties would know does not belong to them. Perception isn't generally based upon what the offender thought as much as what a normal citizen would think.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2013, 06:32:53 AM
Depends on the statute, actually. There's more than one mental state under the law. Some laws have the mental state of "knowingly" as a part of the statute, while others have "recklessly" or "negligently." You could also easily argue that he plugged his little toy car into a socket that didn't belong to him, taking electricity that a person of normal mental faculties would know does not belong to them. Perception isn't generally based upon what the offender thought as much as what a normal citizen would think.
Hence my use of the term "widely understood."
I think any adult with the financial means to purchase an automobile would have a hard time convincing a jury that he didn't know the school pays a utility bill for the electricity it consumes.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 07:53:18 AM
I think any adult with the financial means to purchase an automobile would have a hard time convincing a jury that he didn't know the school pays a utility bill for the electricity it consumes.
Completely beside the point.
Parks pay all kinds of bills for their upkeep. That doesn't mean they're not for public use.
But this wasn't a park, and school facilities are generally not open to the public. Could you walk into your local high school and start using their fax machine? Why would anyone assume that they have implicit permission as a taxpayer to start plugging in powertools to their neighborhood school?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 09:15:09 AM
Completely beside the point.
Parks pay all kinds of bills for their upkeep. That doesn't mean they're not for public use.
What do you mean? Taxes and such fund parks. Therefore, we get to use and enjoy them. If you want to start using extra electricity at the park to charge your Leaf, somebody has to pay for it. Which means taxes go up. This is why you often have to pay to rent public parks for large events and/or or pay fees for utility use.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 09:32:02 AM
But this wasn't a park, and school facilities are generally not open to the public. Could you walk into your local high school and start using their fax machine? Why would anyone assume that they have implicit permission as a taxpayer to start plugging in powertools to their neighborhood school?
But it depends on the school and their facility. And again, the guy was taking a tennis lesson at the school, and assuming the instructor has permission to use the tennis court, he has permission to use the facility including the water fountain as a part of implied consent. And if there's an outlet at the tennis court, he can plug in his tennis ball machine or whatever radio that he may have and play music or would that be considered stealing?
I mean, if someone uses a pen while signing in at school end up taking that pen, do you actually arrest that person for theft? Would police actually do it?
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 09:32:02 AM
But this wasn't a park, and school facilities are generally not open to the public. Could you walk into your local high school and start using their fax machine? Why would anyone assume that they have implicit permission as a taxpayer to start plugging in powertools to their neighborhood school?
Most school playgrounds and many facilities are indeed open to the public outside of school hours.
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 11, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
What do you mean? Taxes and such fund parks. Therefore, we get to use and enjoy them. If you want to start using extra electricity at the park to charge your Leaf, somebody has to pay for it. Which means taxes go up. This is why you often have to pay to rent public parks for large events and/or or pay fees for utility use.
Le sigh...
Where do you define what constitutes "extra" energy? What is a large event?
If the park/school in question does not have explicit rules concerning whether or not plugging in your car is an acceptable use (and most don't), then it's very much a judgement call on whether or not it is.
That's a long way from theft.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 10:18:21 AM
Le sigh...
Where do you define what constitutes "extra" energy? What is a large event?
If the park/school in question does not have explicit rules concerning whether or not plugging in your car is an acceptable use (and most don't), then it's very much a judgement call on whether or not it is.
That's a long way from theft.
And a Leaf from a 120V outlet would be drawing at most 3.3kWh of energy per hour anyways, which is probably around $0.27 of electricity if that. People think these EVs draws huge amount of power and simply plugging it in would sap $20-30 worth of power immediately.. hell, it even shows on these EV charging station that's charging $2.00 per hour of charge, really now?? It means that it'll cost more per mile than a petro car in Europe.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 10:14:11 AM
Most school playgrounds and many facilities are indeed open to the public outside of school hours.
Playgrounds? Sure. Facilities? Occasionally, but under the oversight of a school official or volunteer tasked with similar responsibility. More importantly, the people using them are given permission and limited access. They can't use the building at their own pleasure. It's not a park and no one treats it as such. Strangers don't just walk in, take a drink from the fountain, and pull up a seat in a hall to read the newspaper.
Just because the city rec league makes arrangements for me to play basketball at a middle school gym, doesn't mean I can take all the crayons from the art room.
Quote from: NomisR on December 11, 2013, 11:50:55 AM
And a Leaf from a 120V outlet would be drawing at most 3.3kWh of energy per hour anyways, which is probably around $0.27 of electricity if that. People think these EVs draws huge amount of power and simply plugging it in would sap $20-30 worth of power immediately.. hell, it even shows on these EV charging station that's charging $2.00 per hour of charge, really now?? It means that it'll cost more per mile than a petro car in Europe.
I represented a guy the other day charged with stealing a $2 Coors Light tallboy from a gas station.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 12:48:23 PM
Playgrounds? Sure. Facilities? Occasionally, but under the oversight of a school official or volunteer tasked with similar responsibility. More importantly, the people using them are given permission and don't enjoy unrestricted access to the entire campus.
Just because the city rec league makes arrangements for me to play basketball at a middle school gym, doesn't mean I can take all the crayons from the art room.
And where does the tennis court lay? Not in the art room, surely.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 11, 2013, 12:51:56 PM
And where does the tennis court lay? Not in the art room, surely.
He wasn't arrested for using the tennis court.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 12:58:26 PM
He wasn't arrested for using the tennis court.
Why not?
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 12:58:26 PM
He wasn't arrested for using the tennis court.
Well, based on the statement by the city and sheriff, apparently the complaint by the school was for trespassing and not for theft even though the warrant was for theft.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 12:50:59 PM
I represented a guy the other day charged with stealing a $2 Coors Light tallboy from a gas station.
One you can clearly prove the possession of stolen good, someone else's property on him, and another, you can only assume property was stolen. There's no proof, just because the guy's plugged in, you unless you can measure the actual usage at the time from that exact outlet, there's no way for them to prove anything was actually taken. You have to remember that these EVs allows for delayed charging too. And even then, how do you prove anything was actually taken? Again, using a drinking foutain at a tennis court is theft? Or is using an outlet at the tennis court to charge your phone theft?
This whole thing seems like it was simply done to inconvenience the guy and nothing more. The charges won't stick.
Quote from: NomisR on December 11, 2013, 01:37:14 PM
One you can clearly prove the possession of stolen good, someone else's property on him, and another, you can only assume property was stolen. There's no proof, just because the guy's plugged in, you unless you can measure the actual usage at the time from that exact outlet, there's no way for them to prove anything was actually taken. You have to remember that these EVs allows for delayed charging too. And even then, how do you prove anything was actually taken? Again, using a drinking foutain at a tennis court is theft? Or is using an outlet at the tennis court to charge your phone theft?
This whole thing seems like it was simply done to inconvenience the guy and nothing more. The charges won't stick.
I would agree that it appears to be a weak case. FWIW, apparently the outlet wasn't at the court itself and the guy had to block a loading dock to access it.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 01:59:47 PM
I would agree that it appears to be a weak case. FWIW, apparently the outlet wasn't at the court itself and the guy had to block a loading dock to access it.
Yeah, true, but the whole issue shouldn't even involve jail. There's also another issue of warrant-less search of the Leaf owner's car.
And then of course, using something as petty as this in order to "punish" or inconvenience a douche bag is a bit disturbing. Even if all the charges were dropped, simply having someone go through this, is troubling. This can be something that can happen to anyone..
Quote from: NomisR on December 11, 2013, 03:41:43 PMThere's also another issue of warrant-less search of the Leaf owner's car.
A non-issue. Assuming it was a legitimate
unlawful warrantless search of his car (and, given that vehicles frequently fall under warrant exceptions, that is not necessarily the case...nor are warrantless searches per se unreasonable or illegal), nothing indicated that anything found in the car is being used against him. The remedy of an unlawful warrantless search is the evidentiary loss of anything recovered. Nothing recovered from the search = no loss.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2013, 12:50:59 PMI represented a guy the other day charged with stealing a $2 Coors Light tallboy from a gas station.
Exactly. The amount of the loss does not have any bearing on whether the charges are legitimate. Generally, the cost of what is taken only have a bearing on the degree of offense (ie, the theft of items of greater value may result in higher-level charges).
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2013, 06:45:42 PM
A non-issue. Assuming it was a legitimate unlawful warrantless search of his car (and, given that vehicles frequently fall under warrant exceptions, that is not necessarily the case...nor are warrantless searches per se unreasonable or illegal), nothing indicated that anything found in the car is being used against him. The remedy of an unlawful warrantless search is the evidentiary loss of anything recovered. Nothing recovered from the search = no loss.
I think it goes to a little bit deeper of an issue. If the goal was to find out who owned the car, the officer could have simply run the plate. The fact that he opened the door and rummaged through the glove box indicates to me that he was salivating over the prospect of trying to find something illegal in the process. That bothers me.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 11, 2013, 02:23:27 AM
Yeah, I know, and maybe there needs to be a local ordinance that codifies it. But some things should be common-sense. Assholes who own Nissan Leaves think that because they're "saving the environment" they are entitled to things including, apparently, electricity I as a taxpayer might pay for at BOE-owned buildings.
As has been said already, what's the difference between this clown charging up using a BOE-owned outlet or me swinging my SUV around to the BOE school bus fuel pumps to fill up the tank?
Oh, so all of a sudden, we're for regulation when it comes to outlets? Very inconsistent.
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 11, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
What do you mean? Taxes and such fund parks. Therefore, we get to use and enjoy them. If you want to start using extra electricity at the park to charge your Leaf, somebody has to pay for it. Which means taxes go up. This is why you often have to pay to rent public parks for large events and/or or pay fees for utility use.
Taxes fund public schools, too, that can't be the argument here. And his kid was at that school, so it's not like he was pulling up to it for no reason.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2013, 06:45:42 PM
A non-issue. Assuming it was a legitimate unlawful warrantless search of his car (and, given that vehicles frequently fall under warrant exceptions, that is not necessarily the case...nor are warrantless searches per se unreasonable or illegal), nothing indicated that anything found in the car is being used against him. The remedy of an unlawful warrantless search is the evidentiary loss of anything recovered. Nothing recovered from the search = no loss.
Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now? I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.
Quote from: Raza on December 12, 2013, 11:58:56 AM
Oh, so all of a sudden, we're for regulation when it comes to outlets? Very inconsistent.
ordinance isn't necessarily regulations but simply can be used to clarify what constitutes as free for public use.
Quote from: Raza on December 12, 2013, 12:30:30 PM
Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now? I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.
I thought they would need permission before they tear apart my car leaving my belongings on the side of the road for me to pick up.
It's really false advertising to call a car a leaf when it doesn't run on leaves.. heck you can't even plug it into a tree.
Quote from: Raza on December 12, 2013, 12:30:30 PM
Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now? I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.
The guy was parked illegally in front of a loading dock with his doors open. The police wanted to ID him so he could move his car. I suppose they could have called a tow truck instead. :huh:
Quote from: Tave on December 13, 2013, 06:22:07 AM
The guy was parked illegally in front of a loading dock with his doors open. The police wanted to ID him so he could move his car. I suppose they could have called a tow truck instead. :huh:
I think that would have been legally preferable.
The door was unlocked, not open.
Quote from: Raza on December 12, 2013, 12:30:30 PM
Wait, so coppers can search cars all willy-nilly now? I knew they only needed the most bullshittiest of probable causes, but still.
QuoteAutomobile Exception - Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the "automobile exception," this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).
Quote from: Tave on December 13, 2013, 06:22:07 AM
The guy was parked illegally in front of a loading dock with his doors open. The police wanted to ID him so he could move his car. I suppose they could have called a tow truck instead. :huh:
Didn't realize he was parked illegally.
Quote from: Catman on December 13, 2013, 09:19:06 AM
Ah, so it is the probable cause thing. Which is essentially willy-nilly.
Quote from: Catman on December 13, 2013, 09:19:06 AM
So, the officer was searching for? uh... stolen electricity??? :huh:
Quote from: Raza on December 13, 2013, 09:51:30 AM
Ah, so it is the probable cause thing. Which is essentially willy-nilly.
You asked about it and I gave you the answer. Its been argued a billion times in court, no need for me to get into it.
Quote from: NomisR on December 13, 2013, 11:10:44 AM
So, the officer was searching for? uh... stolen electricity??? :huh:
It explains automobile searches without warrants which is what Raza asked. I wasn't relating it to this case.
Quote from: Catman on December 14, 2013, 08:29:19 AM
It explains automobile searches without warrants which is what Raza asked. I wasn't relating it to this case.
It actually would be interesting to see how arguments would go about this search if it went to a higher court.
If the stated reason for the search was to find out who owned the vehicle, I would wonder if a judge would toss the search because that information was easily obtainable without conducting a search, simply by running the plate. And is a desire to find out who owns an illegally parked vehicle justification enough to search the vehicle – especially one that is, by its nature, parked.