SCOTUS Case Over Vacant House

[Senator]

This is a case I just heard about. It concerns me, as I travel a bit, and periodically have vacant apartments.

The gist of it is this.
A bunch of people showed up at a vacant house and had a party. The cops arrested them. The partiers/trespassers say they were invited by 'someone', did not know it was a vacant home, therefore, should not have been arrested.

If it is ruled that they cannot be arrested for trespassing, it may open the doors up for anyone to go to any vacant home, and squat or party without any repercussions. Have a great party at someones home, worse case you get told to leave. All they have to say is they were invited by 'someone', and they can have a party.

If you travel, or leave your home for extended periods (i.e. more than a day), it should be of interest to you.

A late-night party that turned a vacant Washington home into a busy strip club was at the center of a Supreme Court argument Wednesday...

Important to the case is whether the partiers knew or should have known they were trespassing on the property...

Raucous DC house party subject of Supreme Court case - ABC News

 

[audreyh1]

Interesting. If they break and enter and set off our alarm which calls the cops, I wonder how they could get off by claiming "someone" told them they could.

They do have a culprit, "Peaches" who admitted she was the one who invited folks and did not have permission of the homeowner. I can see how the others arrested for trespassing had charges dropped.

 

[mystang52]

Maybe a "No Trespassing" sign would help?

 

[Sunset]

Yes, we just love having more things to worry about, there is also the scam where they try to take over your house while you are on vacation.

Florida squatters use archaic law to occupy vacant homes - Portland Press Herald

 

[Sunset]

Maybe a "No Trespassing" sign would help?

But they were all invited

 

[Senator]

Yes, we just love having more things to worry about, there is also the scam where they try to take over your house while you are on vacation.

Florida squatters use archaic law to occupy vacant homes - Portland Press Herald

That is quite a bit different, as the people can be arrested. If the supreme court rules that they cannot be arrested, the fallout will be huge.

I may even give up my own house to live in the places that people leave from.

 

[Senator]

But they were all invited

Exactly. By definition, you cannot be trespassing if you are invited. No matter who owns the home.

 

[travelover]

Music was playing. People were drinking. And scantily clad women were performing lap dances wearing cash-stuffed garter belts.

I don't know how this case will turn out, but if anyone hears of a similar place, let me know.

 

[sengsational]

I don't know how this case will turn out, but if anyone hears of a similar place, let me know.

Solution: Always set the alarm before you leave. With most alarms, unless it's disarmed, it makes a racket, and keeps making a racket (whooping). The trespassers don't know if the cops will come automatically or if the neighbors will call the cops. The perps would have to figure out how to disable it. Most alarms have battery backup inside a steel box hidden and bolted to a wall somewhere, so flipping a breaker isn't going to do it. You'd have to find the box, force the box open or tear it off the wall. It doesn't sound like these perps were that kind of people, lol!

If the house of the court case had an alarm, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What they should do is throw the case out and scold the house owners for being idiots.

 

[jollystomper]

As I read the article, they were invited, and the person who invited them admitted that she did not have permission:

A woman named Peaches, who wasn't there, was identified by some as the party's host. Reached by phone, Peaches eventually told police she had invited people to the home but didn't have the homeowner's approval to use the place. A total of 21 people were arrested for trespassing, though charges were later dropped.

I can see "Peaches" getting in trouble, but the suit I believe is about the partygoers - should they have been arrested as they were told by the "host" that she had permission? This is not the same as them making up a "someone" who invited them.

Think about it this way. You are invited to a social event at a hotel ballroom by Person X. You arrive and are enjoying yourself when police arrive and say everyone is there illegally, Person X does not have permission to use the ballroom. Should you be arrested?

 

[audreyh1]

As I read the article, they were invited, and the person who invited them admitted that she did not have permission:

I can see "Peaches" getting in trouble, but the suit I believe is about the partygoers - should they have been arrested as they were told by the "host" that she had permission? This is not the same as them making up a "someone" who invited them.

Think about it this way. You are invited to a social event at a hotel ballroom by Person X. You arrive and are enjoying yourself when police arrive and say everyone is there illegally, Person X does not have permission to use the ballroom. Should you be arrested?

Yeah - I think that's the crux of it.

And at my house we have an alarm system which is armed when we leave. So it's not like any person is going to imagine they have "permission". The alarm company will contact me, the police will be called, etc.

 

[Senator]

As I read the article, they were invited, and the person who invited them admitted that she did not have permission:

I can see "Peaches" getting in trouble, but the suit I believe is about the partygoers - should they have been arrested as they were told by the "host" that she had permission? This is not the same as them making up a "someone" who invited them.

And if they made up that 'someone', and posted a invite on-line from a make-believe person, no one gets in trouble or arrested.

It's easy to be invited from a friend of a friend. No one admits to knowing the original invitee. They have a party, and no one get arrested.

I am glad I have a security system, and 10 cameras.

 

[sengsational]

If The Supremes decide nobody gets in trouble, I've got a great plan for my daughter's wedding reception

 

[btdt22]

Solution: Always set the alarm before you leave.

If the house of the court case had an alarm, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What they should do is throw the case out and scold the house owners for being idiots.

So every homeowner is an idiot if they don't have a $500-1000 battery powered alarm system installed in steel box in a hidden part of their house? So what security sales firm do you work for

 

[Sunset]

If The Supremes decide nobody gets in trouble, I've got a great plan for my daughter's wedding reception

Great idea, save a bundle on the reception rent, invite me

 

[TimSF]

I'm not familiar with the case but, generally speaking, I do not see this Supreme court weakening property rights.

 

[Senator]

If The Supremes decide nobody gets in trouble, I've got a great plan for my daughter's wedding reception

And that is exactly what I was thinking. No repercussions as long as you say you did not know....

 

[swguy]

This really isnt a property rights case, its a probable cause case. This isnt the SCOTUS getting involved in a he said/she said about an invitation, or how the guests were invited. Here is an easy to follow explainer:

http://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/2017/10/4/district-of-columbia-v-wesby-argument-october-4-2017

 

[Fermion]

Hey everyone! I heard Bill Gates is going to be away on a trip and invited us all to his house in Medina! Parrrrrty!

 

[USGrant1962]

This really isnt a property rights case, its a probable cause case. This isnt the SCOTUS getting involved in a he said/she said about an invitation, or how the guests were invited. Here is an easy to follow explainer:

http://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/2017/10/4/district-of-columbia-v-wesby-argument-october-4-2017

This.

I've seen discussion of this case here and elsewhere, and it is NOT a trespass case. Trespassing doesn't get to SCOTUS. It is about probable cause for arrest.

As the Supreme's questioning indicated, they are rather suspicious of the officers' decision to mass-arrest party-goers (i.e., rather than an order to disperse, legally followed by arrest if they fail to do so).

It got to SCOTUS because the police lost in court for false arrest.

 

[Senator]

I've seen discussion of this case here and elsewhere, and it is NOT a trespass case. Trespassing doesn't get to SCOTUS. It is about probable cause for arrest.

As the Supreme's questioning indicated, they are rather suspicious of the officers' decision to mass-arrest party-goers (i.e., rather than an order to disperse, legally followed by arrest if they fail to do so).

It got to SCOTUS because the police lost in court for false arrest.

You are right, it is not a trespass case. The decision will have implications far beyond trespassing. Anyone will be allowed to go into any home, if someone tells them it's OK and implies that they have permission. It won't have to be a bunch of people in a house, maybe just one.

So if the crowd disperses after partying for several hours and there are no arrests, what is the incentive to NOT do it again, or at all.

If there is not probable cause to arrest, then that opens the doors to go into any vacant house and have a fun time. Worse case, you get asked to leave. No one saw you do damage, or steal, so no one has to pay.

If there can be no arrests in a vacant house, it may follow onto other activities.

If a friend says you can use a car, even if it's not his, you likely cannot get arrested. You thought it was his to allow you to drive. He had the keys in the ignition and said take it.

Of if a friend says "Go ahead and go in the house and take the TV", you will not get arrested for that either.

This is a big can of worms...

 

[swguy]

You are right, it is not a trespass case. The decision will have implications far beyond trespassing. Anyone will be allowed to go into any home, if someone tells them it's OK and implies that they have permission. It won't have to be a bunch of people in a house, maybe just one.

So if the crowd disperses after partying for several hours and there are no arrests, what is the incentive to NOT do it again, or at all.

If there is not probable cause to arrest, then that opens the doors to go into any vacant house and have a fun time. Worse case, you get asked to leave. No one saw you do damage, or steal, so no one has to pay.

If there can be no arrests in a vacant house, it may follow onto other activities.

If a friend says you can use a car, even if it's not his, you likely cannot get arrested. You thought it was his to allow you to drive. He had the keys in the ignition and said take it.

Of if a friend says "Go ahead and go in the house and take the TV", you will not get arrested for that either.

This is a big can of worms...

Its actually not a can of worms at all. I'm not sure how you could infer that from reading what is being decided here.

If you are thinking that it might become possible for someone to force their way into one of your vacant properties, and when discovered by police they could simply say "I was invited" and be set free you are mistaken.

If someone breaks in and stays a few weeks, then call a plumber when the sink backs up are you thinking the plumber should be arrested if the cops show up during his service call?

 

[Senator]

Its actually not a can of worms at all. I'm not sure how you could infer that from reading what is being decided here.

If you are thinking that it might become possible for someone to force their way into one of your vacant properties, and when discovered by police they could simply say "I was invited" and be set free you are mistaken.

If someone breaks in and stays a few weeks, then call a plumber when the sink backs up are you thinking the plumber should be arrested if the cops show up during his service call?

That is exactly what may happen. And even if you are gone for an evening, it could happen. It doesn't have to be a rental and it doesn't have to be a long time.

Someone, or a group, says they are invited by someone else. The someone else may exist, or not. They willingly leave when the cops show up and say they are sorry. No arrests. The damage was there before they got there, and there never was a TV on the wall.

How is that different than this SCOTUS case?. In the current case, the cops arrested everyone. The charges were all dropped.

With the current district court ruling, no one can even be arrested.

Property crime rarely gets solved as it is, this is a "get out of jail free card" for lots of riff-raff.

 

[swguy]

No.. it's not a get out of jail free card. This decision has exactly nothing to do with what happens if someone breaks into your house. People say they were charged with crimes they did not commit, and the decision is about whether the officers involved had probable cause to make the charge. The people charged didnt break into a house, neither side is disputing that.

 

[swguy]

Also.. with the current district court ruling, Peaches can be arrested if the owner were to bring charges, as she was the person that unlawfully entered the property. The case isnt about that, however, its about charges brought against the others she invited.