Also, what constitutes a 30.05 sign? Does it have to forbid entry completely (i.e. "No Tresspassing") or can it be conditional (i.e. "No Pickup Trucks Allowed")? I know there are some requirements in the 30.05 statute (fences, markings for land), but none for signs.
It seems to me that a ghostbusters would invoke 30.05, which is not, obviously, conforming to 30.06 requirements, but would allow for an arrest follwed by a defense to prosecution. That would take me back to my previous question as to whether a lawful arrest can be made under 30.05 and if a ghostbusters would enable that lawful arrest, even if I (or you) would eventually prevail, but at some expense.
Thanks
30.05 signs
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
"Defense to prosecution" is a funny animal. It appears in several laws and seems to be saying something like "don't do this, because if you do you'll be arrested and tried and you'll have to prove something to not get found guilty."
In reality, no DA is going to prosecute a case where the defendant has a clear "defense to prosecution" working. It isn't worth their time and effort, and they have better things to do. They especially won't do it on something less than a first or second degree felony.
And 99% of the time the police won't bother with it either. They know the case will be dropped and all that time they spent doing paperwork will be wasted.
"Defense to prosecution" gives the police a way to get someone out of a situation and into the police station if they need to. If someone is being an absolute horse's rear, they can take action (arrest) and let the person cool off in jail for the night, and then let the DA drop the charges in the morning. Or in more serious cases, like if deadly force has been used, they can get the person into custody and get them in an interrogation room with recording equipment, etc., just to cover themselves so the situation has been properly documented for the DA. It's basically an arrest that will automatically be dropped.
As long as you're not antagonizing the police officers, causing a scene, making threats of legal action or doing anything where the officer will have to call for backup, you'll never have to worry about being arrested under 30.05 and then presenting a "defense to prosecution" to clear yourself.
In reality, no DA is going to prosecute a case where the defendant has a clear "defense to prosecution" working. It isn't worth their time and effort, and they have better things to do. They especially won't do it on something less than a first or second degree felony.
And 99% of the time the police won't bother with it either. They know the case will be dropped and all that time they spent doing paperwork will be wasted.
"Defense to prosecution" gives the police a way to get someone out of a situation and into the police station if they need to. If someone is being an absolute horse's rear, they can take action (arrest) and let the person cool off in jail for the night, and then let the DA drop the charges in the morning. Or in more serious cases, like if deadly force has been used, they can get the person into custody and get them in an interrogation room with recording equipment, etc., just to cover themselves so the situation has been properly documented for the DA. It's basically an arrest that will automatically be dropped.
As long as you're not antagonizing the police officers, causing a scene, making threats of legal action or doing anything where the officer will have to call for backup, you'll never have to worry about being arrested under 30.05 and then presenting a "defense to prosecution" to clear yourself.
-
BadCo45ACP
- Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:05 pm
"Defense to prosecution" is presented during trial. Basically you have a defense that the legislature says is valid, and therefore you don't necessarily have to convince the judge/jury that a "reasonable person" would have done whatever you did. It's spelled out, so it's automatically reasonable.
The fact that the legislature made the particular action a defense is a strong signal to the judge/jury that, assuming they find that what you did falls under the definition of the particular defense, they are to find you not guilty.
Of course, this would also come out in pretrial and in the grand jury, DA's meetings, etc., so it would be dropped long before trial in the vast majority of cases. But to answer your question, ultimately it is meant for the judge/jury at trial.
The fact that the legislature made the particular action a defense is a strong signal to the judge/jury that, assuming they find that what you did falls under the definition of the particular defense, they are to find you not guilty.
Of course, this would also come out in pretrial and in the grand jury, DA's meetings, etc., so it would be dropped long before trial in the vast majority of cases. But to answer your question, ultimately it is meant for the judge/jury at trial.