How can a municipality discourage and control destructive behavior? I live in a town of about 20,000 people, plus a large college student influx in late August, in the state of New York. Not far from my house there is a dam in a creek. Just above the dam, there are bluffs on either side where people like to jump off from very high up into the water. Then they swim over to the bank and clamber up the (eroded) slope to do it again. News about the thrill of jumping at this spot has been spreading throughout the region, and the spot is now attracting 300 people per day in good weather. There are a number of problems with this: - Alcohol and serious drug use is increasing among the visitors (e.g. Ecstasy). - We're starting to see all-night parties occurring there. - The visitors leave their cars on nearby residential streets and cause a public nuisance -- littering, blocking residents' access to their driveways, peeing on people's lawns, changing clothes in public, being rude to residents. - There are occasional injuries at the location and every few years someone drowns there. Swimming, jumping, drinking, littering and staying past dark are all illegal there, but these activities are only a violation. Penalties are listed as "a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 days, and not less than $100 or 25 hours of community service." Our local law enforcement doesn't have enough staffing to go there every day to patrol the area, and when they do go, they feel so outnumbered that they don't feel that it's safe to issue citations -- they are concerned there might be a violent backlash from the crowd. Question 1: Would it be stronger deterrent to make swimming and jumping a criminal offense, with stronger penalties? Question 2: How would concerned citizens draft a law to make swimming and jumping a criminal offense? Question 3: The creek is owned by the City (the smallest entity geographically); the area around the dam is under Town jurisdiction; the policing around the dam is provided by the County sheriff's department, because the Town does not have its own police force. My question is, at which level should we propose a stronger law? Question 4: Anything else to suggest? Barbed wire? near water's edge, tangled in with the underbrush?
I'll preface this by saying I live in Australia where the lowest jurisdiction that can make an act a criminal offence is the state; local governments simply do not have that power here, Question 1: If I understand this right you have a law that you do not enforce that carries moderate sanctions and you are asking that a law that you do not enforce with greater sanctions will be a greater deterrent? Well ... no (see here). If you want to stop the behavior you have to enforce the sanctions that you have in a fair and impartial way. I would suggest that you make it very clear that starting in early September the laws will be enforced - that gives people fair warning. Then, each weekend in September you bring in enough police (State Troopers?) to enforce the law. Its not going to take many $250 fines to make people stop. Question 2: No comment. Question 3: No comment. Question 4: Sounds like a good way of getting the city sued for negligence; just because people are breaking the law does not make it legal to hurt them. If you are serious then fencing the entire area may be worthwhile but the area would still need to be policed.
TL;DR No Context Let's look at what the Act actually says: 76 Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive, (b)at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected, (c)the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and (d)A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B. ... (4)A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if— (a)it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or (b)it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities. ... And let's look at what the Cheshire Police actually say: You/they may be in an emotionally abusive relationship if your/their partner: ... Punishes you by withholding affection ... You/they may be in a sexually abusive relationship if your/their partner: ... Has ever forced or manipulated you into to having sex or performing sexual acts ... Demands sex when you're sick, tired or after beating you ... Ignores your feelings regarding sex. Discussion The Act requires the behavior to be engaged in &quot;repeatedly or continuously&quot; and it must have &quot;a serious effect&quot;, meaning it must cause &quot;serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities&quot;. The withholding of sex of itself does not have &quot;a serious effect&quot; as defined. As part of a broader pattern of emotional &quot;controlling or coercive behaviour&quot; within the broad context of &quot;withholding affection&quot; it could be a factor in evidence but the law recognizes an absolute right for anyone at any time to refuse sex (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s4). The latter part of the Cheshire Police's advice draws from this.
There are multiple police forces in the US: city, county, state and national, and each is responsible to a relevant executive. Typical &quot;police&quot; are city police, who are responsible to a chief of police, who is appointed at the municipal level. Counties usually have an elected sheriff, and a set of deputies; at the state level, they are usually called state troopers. The typical protocol is that decisions are made at the lowest applicable level, so Seattle police enforce or refuse to enforce laws within Seattle, and King County police enforce or not in remaining unincorporated locations in the county. Individual city officers do not then decide to ignore the chief of police and instead follow orders from the county sheriff or the governor. However, each state grants vast powers to their governor, so it is possible that in the case of a state of emergency, the governor can take command of all law enforcement in the state. Governors &quot;can't&quot; deploy police to oppose federal law enforcement in a shoot-out, except that they might actually do so on some theory that federal law enforcement officers are violating the law. In general, you are not immune to arrest for illegal acts just because you are a law enforcement officer. The governor of Washington could easily (in the legal sense) declare an emergency and order state troopers to prevent federal officers from effecting arrests. Of course, resolving these disputes in court is another option.
A follow-up story appears on the local ABC television station, indicating that the security guard pleaded no contest to simple assault. The fact that the security guard was convicted of a misdemeanor does not necessarily indicate that the deputy was allowed to have the gun in the IRS office, only that the security guard's response to the situation was not acceptable. I am not able to locate any firearm policy for the Lucas County, Ohio' sheriff's office. Many US law enforcement agencies have a policy that their officers carry their firearms essentially at all times, so that they can respond to unexpected incidents even when they are off duty. At the same time, owners of private property ordinarily can admit people, or not, for any reason at all. Unless the officer has an official reason for entering a property when the owner doesn't want the officer there, the officer isn't allowed to enter. It appears that in this case the officer had no official law-enforcement reason to enter. But this case doesn't involve private property, it involves federal property. A digest from the FBI states &quot;Federal laws or regulations are not superseded by LEOSA. Qualified officers may not carry concealed weapons onto aircraft under the act. They also cannot carry firearms into federal buildings or onto federal property.&quot;
The area is &quot;closed&quot; (not open), or &quot;restricted&quot; to alcohol consumption. Here is a memo reminding of alcohol restrictions, noting 36 CFR 2.35 which states that The superintendent may close all or a portion of a public use area or public facility within a park area to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or to the possession of a bottle, can or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, or that has been opened, or whose seal is broken or the contents of which have been partially removed. This was done in the case of the area, apparently a few years earlier (i,e, it used to be allowed and there was a policy change). The Gateway Nt'l Park website states that &quot;Alcoholic beverages at Sandy Hook are prohibited&quot;, as are a bunch of other things. The motivation is part of the regulation, that the superintendent determined that (A) The consumption of an alcoholic beverage or the possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage would be inappropriate considering other uses of the location and the purpose for which it is maintained or established; or (B) Incidents of aberrant behavior related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages are of such magnitude that the diligent application of the authorities in this section and §§ 1.5 and 2.34 of this chapter, over a reasonable time period, does not alleviate the problem.
RCW 46.61.419 gives government police the right to enforce speeding violations as defined in RCW 46.61.400 in certain communities (condominiums and gated communities), per RCM 64.34, 64.32, or 64.38, if: (1) A majority of the homeowner's association's, association of apartment owners', or condominium association's board of directors votes to authorize the issuance of speeding infractions on its private roads, and declares a speed limit not lower than twenty miles per hour; (2) A written agreement regarding the speeding enforcement is signed by the homeowner's association, association of apartment owners, or condominium association president and the chief law enforcement official of the city or county within whose jurisdiction the private road is located; (3) The homeowner's association, association of apartment owners, or condominium association has provided written notice to all of the homeowners, apartment owners, or unit owners describing the new authority to issue speeding infractions; and (4) Signs have been posted declaring the speed limit at all vehicle entrances to the community. Thus there can be a speeding ticket. However, if you speed on my uncle's farm, that's just trespassing because that isn't one of the specified community types. The law only allows speeding enforcement by government law enforcement officers (not private security), and limits how low the maximum speed can be set. This raises an interesting question regarding speed enforcement on the Boeing bridge off S 104th in Seattle, which is private property and not part of a "community", yet quite urban and frequently used.
No one can tell you how the facts are going to line up if you get sued. The attractive nuisance doctrine is alive and you can be found liable if you have, on your property, a dangerous condition which is attractive to children, especially if the danger is not appreciable to the child. Now, I'm a bit skeptical that a child would climb a fence to kick snow, especially if there is other snow outside the fence for them to kick, but stranger things have happened. What can you do? These are ideas, I don't think they are legal advice. Start with the premise that dangerous stuff happens everyday, and kids aren't getting hurt by most of it. Use a fence with barbed wire. In other words, injured the the child with a lesser injury to reduce your liability. Use an opaque fence. Granted, curiosity might be too great and a child will trespass to discover what you are hiding. Use a shed, just one of those thin aluminum structures. Include proximity sensors to set off alarms and lights and whatever. Get your project away from kids; find space in a commercial area.
No crime is committed if a person performs a service and ineptly describes the service. To change the context a bit, I might contract with a guy to build a wall and he says he will charge me for installing a "Swedish drain" when in fact what he will install is called a "French drain". If he installs the thing, it does not matter (legally) whether he calls it by the conventional name. I am not relying on the distinction between French and "Swedish" drains, and that is not material. However: he may specify that the drain will use 18 inches of 1.5" drain rock, but he uses (and intends to use) 18 mm of 3/8" crushed rock, and that is a material fact. In the latter case, he has committed fraud. The same considerations go into dealing with "unnecessary" service, which however is more about "what he said". Let's assume that you come in with a flat tire and the mechanic offers to overhaul the engine. If you agree to this service, that is not fraud, because he did not say something false that you depended on. If, however, you ask "Why would overhauling the engine be necessary" and he says, I dunno, "Because by law, I can't repair a tire without first overhauling the engine", or "Because you flat was caused by astral radiation from a poorly-tuned engine", then that would be fraud – the statements are false, and you relied to their truth, in agreeing to the service. On the third hand, reasonable statements like "it might help", "it could work" are not deceptive, even if it turns out they are not true. Fraud is not about statements that "turn out not to be supported by the facts", it is about statements that you know to be false.