A woman in Naperville watched as workers from a power company entered her yard without permission to install a "smart reader" at her home. And not only entered without permission and against her orders to stay out, but with police escort!
Since when do the police permit trespassing?
Police told the homeowner that they would arrest her, if she interfered with the installation and also ordered videotaping of the event to stop. A woman with a videocamera recorded the installers crossing a locked fence to trespass on the property and install the smart reader, even though the owner had refused entrance and had locked her gate. She also recorded the cop who was present.
A Naperville police officer can be seen on-camera. The homeowner was outside without a coat, but the cop was freezing.
Read the article on Champion News and watch the brief video, which resulted in the arrests of two women.
Apparently, word has not yet reached the Naperville Police Department that it is not illegal to videotape police officers outside during the performance of their duties.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
28 comments:
"...Since when do the police permit trespassing? "
When a utility worker needs to read or service a meter.
Most homeowners are aware of this.
If you had bothered to research this topic, you would have seen the procedures Naperville employed. You would also know the police were there because two women(out of the roughly 150,000 residents of Naperville) had objections to the meter deployment that were not only devoid of fact, but indistinguishable on mental illness. The police accompanied the workers to protect the workers.
But it is illegal to audio record them, which is what 99% of video cameras do simultaneously. You should know that.
SG, I believe the state law may have been overturned on audio and video recording of cops doing their duty out-of-doors. Not sure about inside.
To me cutting the lock to enter the property would definitively be trespassing. It is still her castle.They had NO probable cause to enter.
Stepping over a locked fence and cutting the lock seem strictly wrong.
Utilities might have easements, but I wonder if it's a civil situation, not criminal. If the utility is forbidden access the change the meter, they could just threaten to shut off service.
The meter belongs to the utility- the city, in this case.
The gate was locked deliberately, because the woman was informed by the city that her meter was being replaced.
You do know she could have had a meter installed without the Wi-Fi technology she is so afraid of(this, from a woman with a cell phone and wireless internet in her house- I have friends who are neighbors.)
One time fee of $68, and she gets to pay the city employee to come read the meter once a month.
Because, after all, why should the rest of Naperville subsidize her paranoia.
Saying the city can't come on your property to service or replace something they own- not rational.
John, agreed. I don't believe she has the right to refuse access to her property to check, repair, install or turn off city or power/gas services. INSIDE the house, maybe; but all MY service connections are on the outside of the house;gas, water,electric, cable, phone, etc.
John,
You stated "The gate was locked deliberately" Who cares. That is her right. They trespassed and the city was party to it! Or is it BREAKING and ENTERING? If the utility company has a problem with that they should take it to court. Not some Gestapo tactics. What would you bet she ends up suing the city and winning.
I just read Jim Jones post. What is wrong with you people. You try to do that (cut a lock and enter property) and your ass would be locked up in jail! There are proper ways to do things, not skate around them!
Maverick50- I would suggest reading the city of Naperville's instructions to their residents on how the meter replacement process would work before commenting.
Homeowners were specifically instructed to allow access to the workers- after all, the electric meter DOES NOT BELONG TO THE HOMEOWNER.
The woman in question locked the gate so that the city could not enter to replace the meter. Do you think you can restrict access to your outside property to utility workers? Have you ever even owned a home?
The woman was too ignorant and/or arrogant to pay the $68 dollar one time fee to get an electric meter that won't tickle her tinfoil cap via Wi-Fi. But no. A woman who lives in a $400,000 house can't pay $68 to get an ordinary meter.
Of course, all the media did was to repeat this woman's blatherings verbatim. Shades of Manti Te'o.
And look at you, Maverick- swallowing what the media tells you without questioning anything. You are a fine American.
There is a problem here - "Homeowners were specifically instructed to allow access to the workers-..." What is the authority by which the City says that? As I wrote earlier, the homeowner may have granted an easement to the City.
But for what? For repair, service, maintenance? Is installing a Smart Reader in the category of permitted access of the easement?
Without all the facts, it's hard to know what is right here? In this case the Naperville officer may been been improperly ordered to accompany the installers and to require the homeowner to permit them to enter her property. I doubt that he did it on his own.
Because the city owns the meter and the electric utility- if you ever owned a home, you would understand this- otherwise, you would have shot a meter reader years ago.
If you can't spend the mental energy to visit the City of Naperville website, welll...
Simple 2 part question:
A) have you ever owned a home.
B) if the answer to A) is yes, how did the electric, and/or water and/or gas company determine your monthly usage.
The meter reader comes onto the property with permission. Absence of denied permission equals permission.
In this case, they were denied access.
If they can't read the meter, they estimate the reading or leave a card for the homeowner to return.
They weren't there to read the meter- they were there to replace it. It's clear you've never owned a home.
Your logic would imply that if someon had a leaking gas meter, they could legally prevent the utility from repairing the meter.
Gus, those workers and that policeman were well within the law that allows utility workers to enter upon the private land of others to maintain or service that utilities property. I had the law taped to my clipboard for situations just like this but I unfortnately do not have it any longer. You and she can contact an attorney for information but as far as her filng a lawsuit and winnng, forget about it. And as far as the utility wokers and the policeman being chargd with trespass, they did not trespass or commit any other crime. Sorry.
John L., pretty sure Maverick owns a home, and I have owned in the past, too.
If there is a legal easement for the utility to enter, no problem.
Without such an easement, I doubt that a city or any other government can tell its employees that they have any right under civil law on my property, or on yours.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typicallydeadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[2] The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[2] The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[3]
The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including d
Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include[citation needed]:
• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
• The intruder must be acting unlawfully—for example, the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to use force against officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties.
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force.
• Many states have some form of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,[11] Alaska, Arizona,[12] California,[13][14] Florida, Georgia, Illinois[citation needed], Indiana, Iowa,[15] Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,[12] Maine, Michigan,[12] Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,[12] New Hampshire,[12] North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,[12] Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[16] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[12] Texas,[17] Utah,[18] West Virginia,[12] Wisconsin and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Iowa,[19] Virginia,[20] and Washington) have considered "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[21][22][23]
ILLINOIS State Law (720 ILCS 5/7-2) Sec. 7-2.
Use of force in defense of dwelling.
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(B ) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
You are 1000 percent correct when you quote the above law Maverick. And NONE of it applies to this case. But if YOU become involved in a similar situation and YOU use force against the Officer or the utility workers, I PROMISE you that I will visit you in jail while you serve out your sentenace because that' where you will be. BTW, the term " probable cause is a term or phrase used to determine the validity of an arrest a police officer makes. Did he believe a crime did occur, is occuring or was going to occur? THAT is what probable cause is. It does not apply when we are discussing a policeman or utility workers entering private land to service a meter.
The utility worker cut the lock, the officer did not. Destruction of property, breaking and entering is not a felony? Please explain what it is.
@Maverick- and every single homeowner in Naperville was contacted by the city to remind them to allow the city to access THEIR PROPERTY.
You must not be a homeowner. If you ever own a home, why not try building a fence(with a locked gate) around your electric or gas meter. See how that works out.
And Maverick- if you think the castle doctrine can be applied to utility workers, then your teachers and parents failed you completely. And I sincerely hope any of your neighbors who recognize you here take action
I wish all my articles could generate discussion! I still think that Naperville was hoping that residents would allow the meter people in. But I think they had no right, in law, to enter.
If I lock my fence or build a wall, the meter reader won't be able to get in. He'll knock for entrance or leave a card, or I'll get a letter to provide the reading. I think it would work out fine.
First of all Maverick, there is not a charge in Illinois called "breaking and entering". I know we see that all the time on television but there is no such charge here. The only charge that might apply is Criminal Trespass to Land. But even that would not apply in this case because the utilty workers were acting within the law. Nor is there a charge called destuction of property. Its called Criminal Damage to Property. And that would not apply either because it was the home owner that forced them to cut her lock off in the first place if that even did occur. And more than likely the utility will reimburse her for the cost of the lock.
This is all a bunch of hooey about nothing. It has been long established that utility workers have a right to enter private property to service their equipment. All this woman had to do was let them into her backyard and do their job. They did not enter home as far as I can tell and no one was hurt unless you consider a phoney crying jack an injury. And please tell me how the instalation of a meter would effect her childs "chronic disease". Give me a break.
This womans only remedy is civil court not criminal court and to be honest about it, I doubt she has a case even in civil court.
A reader sent this along:
Federal Lawsuit
NAPERVILLE:
January 21, 2013: A status hearing scheduled for last week was cancelled the afternoon of the day before. No new dates have been scheduled at this time. In December, both parties agreed to a 60-day extension in the discovery phase. The judge has not issued any decisions in the outstanding motions that were discussed in September. The lawsuit continues and remains in the Discovery Phase.
Here is a link: http://www.napervillesmartmeterawareness.org/federal-lawsuit/
Thank You Big Daddy on clearing up the charges. At least it was a discussion and NOT a personal attack as John Lovaas. John Lovaas you want attack my parents? Damn, you'd better look in your own back yard. Do you even know who yours are?
Post a Comment