legal questions...lawyers welcome to assist

[chabouk]

srothstein made some good points, but I think he brings up a difference, even though he didn't mention it: there is a difference between "on" and "in".

You can be "in public" in your front yard, and subject to arrest for public intoxication, because that crime requires that someone "appears in a public place" and "is intoxicated". On the other hand, you can carry (openly or concealed) in that same front yard, and not be properly charged, because the exceptions to PC46.02 don't mention "in public", but do explicitly exempt carriers who are on their own property, or property they control.

Speaking of... the curb isn't your property. Your mailbox, ditches, or sidewalks are most likely within the right of way. I know the ROW takes a good 5' slice off the front of my lot. I'm still responsible for that slice, though: if I don't maintain it, even if I mow right up to the edge of the ROW, they'll send me nastygrams threatening fines. Thus, I must conclude that I control that strip of land, even if I don't technically own it.

So, I can be "in public" on land I "own or control". There's an important distinction between the two depending on which law we're talking about.

[atxgun]

IANAL but wanted to post this for some context of precedence

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/1 ... es_charges

In short a guy was walking around his own house, inside naked, someone happened to walk by and look through his window. She was offended and filed a complaint. You can read the link for the details.

On a side note I can't help but think that if a man was casually walking down the sidewalk and happened to turn his head to end up with a line of sight aligned to catch a glimpse of a female who wanted to walk around her own house naked he would get charged with peeping, but I digress and that's not the topic at hand.

To get back on topic, I think the story I linked to is completely insane. From what I can tell he was just going about his business and should be allowed to be naked in his own house. Unfortunately the way the story played out it doesn't matter what I think.

Take aways: Your private property is considered public unless you have sufficient amounts of land so anyone on the perimeter of your property sees the horizon before they see you ?

[dicion]

I think it could be argued that your front lawn, with a lack of a fence and/or signs, would be construed as 'effective consent'. Eg, you didn't do anything to Prevent them entering it.
If that was the case, then every solicitor that comes to my door could be arrested for trespassing. (Oh, How I wish that were true!)

Dicion, either you confuse me or you mistyped this. How can the lack of a fence and or signs be construed as effective consent? How can not doing anything to prevent someone from entering be construed as effective consent?

srothstein detailed it much better than I could ever have ;)

So Everyone (who can..) make sure you put up 'no trespassing' signs, and put a plastic chain across your driveway ;)

[TexasRedneck]

Carrying a holstered weapon while on your front yard would have a hard time successfully meeting the standards for "calculated to cause alarm". I've met more than one officer on my premises with a weapon in a holster (in the front yard) with nary a comment being made. I don't wear it out mowing the yard - but there's one in my pocket. The officer in question is not only wrong, he's so wrong that he'd likely score his city a lawsuit by the time it was over and done with.

One thing I seldom see mentioned in ANY discussion is to calmly ask an officer you sense is preparing to escalate against you to call for a supervisor. I've done that myself (more than once), and have always found the more experienced officers to not only be a calming influence on the younger one, but since they're doing the explaining, they believe it.

[grad_Student]

IANAL but wanted to post this for some context of precedence

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/1 ... es_charges

In short a guy was walking around his own house, inside naked, someone happened to walk by and look through his window. She was offended and filed a complaint. You can read the link for the details.

On a side note I can't help but think that if a man was casually walking down the sidewalk and happened to turn his head to end up with a line of sight aligned to catch a glimpse of a female who wanted to walk around her own house naked he would get charged with peeping, but I digress and that's not the topic at hand.

To get back on topic, I think the story I linked to is completely insane. From what I can tell he was just going about his business and should be allowed to be naked in his own house. Unfortunately the way the story played out it doesn't matter what I think.

Take aways: Your private property is considered public unless you have sufficient amounts of land so anyone on the perimeter of your property sees the horizon before they see you ?

There isn't an overarching privacy rights in our system. The 4th Amendment is as close as it gets. It's funny you should bring this up as over lunch a few weeks ago a bunch of prosecutors and I tried to come up with a scenario just like this. Out conclusion, based on our "vast" legal knowledge (I say that jokingly), was that yes you could be charged for walking around your house naked. The statute in question however implies that there must be some type of gratification either for yourself or for other people. Now this is where the law gets fun because it's then up to the attorney's to prove that the person in the home was walking around with the windows open for sexual gratification implied through inferences: Ex: windows are open, day time, naked...all inferences. Anyway, back to the public property v. private property. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated numerous times that the 4th amendment, right to be secure in your "home" applies to people NOT places. As such, once you display yourself to the public you lose those "rights" of doing private things in your home.

[hirundo82]

A holstered gun openly carried should not constitute a disorderly conduct, because is calculated to cause alarm. Otherwise, LEO would not be allowed to carry openly. The fear of guns can and do happen at first sight, whether LEO was the actor or a civilian.

The difference is the "public" expects to see a firearm carried openly on an LEO.

There are people out there who are so scared of guns that a holsteres=d pistol carried by an LEO. If the mental alarm of the complaining witness is the standard used, LEOs would be susceptible to a disturbing the peach charge--there is no law enforcement exception to PC 42.01.

Other than that, if I were to be arrested on my own property for open carry, the police department had better have some very good lawyers because I'm sure any number of attorneys would just love to file a §1983 suit for that arrest.

[Dragonfighter]

srothstein made some good points, but I think he brings up a difference, even though he didn't mention it: there is a difference between "on" and "in".

Speaking of... the curb isn't your property. Your mailbox, ditches, or sidewalks are most likely within the right of way. I know the ROW takes a good 5' slice off the front of my lot. I'm still responsible for that slice, though: if I don't maintain it, even if I mow right up to the edge of the ROW, they'll send me nastygrams threatening fines. Thus, I must conclude that I control that strip of land, even if I don't technically own it.

Easements are your property, you simply can not deny use by public utilities...but you pay taxes on it. In either case it is property you "control". When I had a drug dealer living across the street (he was a nice guy but the company he kept...) I mowed, worked on cars and everything with a sidearm, typically covered but not too carefully. Never had a problem, had several patrol officers come through and some would stop and chat (ostensibly to watch for a while).

Added in edit: In deference to common wisdom I include the following. IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL. So there.

[stevie_d_64]

In my encounters with Law Enforcement over the years...I have come to the conclusion that it is like a box of chocolates...You never know what you're going to get...And when it is established that you are armed, every bite after that fact is established, it sometimes becomes that nasty filled chocolate covered blech, that ruins the rest left in the box...

As much as I would like to see an encounter without the fact that I have a gun, and they have a gun, does it not have to be a real distraction to getting to the root of why we are interacting...That is a little unrealistic...

So I would rather be un-noticed than noticed in most cases...There may be time when I change my mind, but now I cannot...