Screwed?

[GSG]

I've often thought of that. Thieves could just drive into boston and "pretend" its street cleaning night. Free cars. Even if the alarms go off nobody ever pays attention to
those things, anyways.

-Mike

Through work (armed security) I've had countless cars towed, my guess is somewhere around 100 (just personally). I've seen repo tows, tows for illegally parked cars, abandoned cars, all kinds. A few times we've gotten attacked by a crazy who doesn't want their car towed, once we had an angry apartment building empty out screaming about us being racist with our towing policy, it goes on and on.

But, in 4 years of towing cars, people going berserk, heads poking out of windows to see what all the commotion is about, the only time the police have ever been called has been when me or one of the guys with me has made the call. Even in the middle of the night, with all kinds of shouting and drama, no one calls.

Not only that, I remember one tow driver who we would time to see how fast he could tow a car. He regularly would have a car hooked and off the property less than 60 seconds after he showed up. By the time people got outside to yell that their car had been towed, he'd already be back towing another.

I didn't like towing at all when I did it, too much fuss, so I quickly learned that the best way to do it was fast. We'd let the tow guy hook while we watched his back, and he knew no matter what, get the car out of there, we'd deal with the rest. It worked well.

But back to what you were saying, if you're in a parking lot and see a tow truck with lights flashing hooking a car, you'll probably think "Uh oh, someone broke down and had to call AAA." If you see the Hamburglar with a slimjim and a crowbar sneaking around in the dark in a parking lot, you'll probably call the cops.

Professionals use trucks.

 

[GSG]

This was big on LI. My dad was one of those parkers who couldn't walk far enough to keep their car from getting dinged. He never lost his car (POS not high on the theft list) but others had and one way to prevent it was to park front in with the tires cranked. So long as you had cars on either side, they had to not only hook it and manuever it out, but also jack the front and place those trolleys. Enough work to dissuade them unless it was a really good car. Now a days though, the tow trucks can snag a parallel parked car in seconds and the above methodology is useless because the FWD allows the tires to lock and skid.

That reminds me, we once towed a car that was parked like this, and the female owner came outside punching when she saw it. The tow driver hooked the rear wheels and began driving, and since her front wheels were locked to one side, the tow truck sped away with the towed car driving almost beside him, taking up the whole width of the road. He pulled over later and straightened it out, but if you're in a pinch it will work.

 

[Garys]

Your driveway is not private property (legally). The public has a right of access.

To a residential driveway? I can see the right of access to a commercial parking lot, but since when is there a public right of access to a private driveway.

 

[Martlet]

To a residential driveway? I can see the right of access to a commercial parking lot, but since when is there a public right of access to a private driveway.

There isn't. Sometimes cops hear things that they want to believe to be true, since it assists in violating your rights. Your driveway is your property. You can slap a gate across it if you so desire.

 

[JRyan]

There isn't. Sometimes cops hear things that they want to believe to be true, since it assists in violating your rights. Your driveway is your property. You can slap a gate across it if you so desire.

There's some leeway there if you driveway extends out past a public sidewalk, but only that part of it.

Anyway, if I looked out my window at 3am and saw:

You can bet I'm armed.

 

[Martlet]

There's some leeway there if you driveway extends out past a public sidewalk, but only that part of it.

That's not your driveway. You can't gate the public right of way that is the sidewalk.

I understand that, but also take issue with that as well. The city requires me to maintain a sidewalk on my property. If they want to force me to pave a portion of my property, they should maintain it. Better yet, if they want a sidewalk they should build one outside my property.

 

[JRyan]

That's not your driveway. You can't gate the public right of way that is the sidewalk.

I understand that, but also take issue with that as well. The city requires me to maintain a sidewalk on my property. If they want to force me to pave a portion of my property, they should maintain it. Better yet, if they want a sidewalk they should build one outside my property.

I hear you , I'm just saying the section they claim is mine that they forced me to pave and force me to maintain and forced me to get a permit to pave, they also force me to let people walk across. I'm not saying I agree with how things run at all.

 

[MassMark]

The driveway deal still bugs me. If I understand this correctly, (which I sincerely hope I don't), one buys a piece of property - for sake of argument let's say 4-acres. You decide to build your house on the rear acre - leaving three acres open or wooded, with a winding driveway to a public road. Am I to understand that the driveway to your home is owned by the city and is therefore a public access road? This makes zero sense to me. I would consider anything beyond the public sidewalk a free-fire zone....How is it that private property is not private? A repo company on private property - even to repossess a car which the owner has defaulted on, still is trespassing in my book....

 

[M1911]

The driveway deal still bugs me. If I understand this correctly, (which I sincerely hope I don't), one buys a piece of property - for sake of argument let's say 4-acres. You decide to build your house on the rear acre - leaving three acres open or wooded, with a winding driveway to a public road. Am I to understand that the driveway to your home is owned by the city and is therefore a public access road? ..

Now, that is not what he Half Cocked was saying. If you buy your 4 acres in NH is it legal for the UPS guy to drive on your land to deliver your ammo to you? Yes, and he isn't trespassing, unless you put up a gate and signs.

 

[Fooped]

Your driveway is not private property (legally). The public has a right of access.

Really? I'm not trying to flame or be argumentative, but I'm very suprised at this. Does this pertain to parties that could have legitimate business there (repo man, police, fire, EMT etc) or literally the "general public" as in:

Joe Pucky is "hanging out" in my driveway due to it being a place the public has access to?

Doesn't seem right.

 

[Mark from MA]

The driveway deal still bugs me. If I understand this correctly, (which I sincerely hope I don't), one buys a piece of property - for sake of argument let's say 4-acres. You decide to build your house on the rear acre - leaving three acres open or wooded, with a winding driveway to a public road. Am I to understand that the driveway to your home is owned by the city and is therefore a public access road? This makes zero sense to me. I would consider anything beyond the public sidewalk a free-fire zone....How is it that private property is not private? A repo company on private property - even to repossess a car which the owner has defaulted on, still is trespassing in my book....

I have the type of driveway you describe, and no..the city or town does not own your driveway, typically they own ten feet or so back from the road, but after that you can gate off or post what you want. It is private property, not a public ROW.

The repo may be trespassing, however, it's doubtful the court would hold those charges if your indeed in default of a loan. Since you are basically in violation of holding something that the bank owns on your property.....

 

[JRyan]

I have the type of driveway you describe, and no..the city or town does not own your driveway, typically they own ten feet or so back from the road, but after that you can gate off or post what you want. It is private property, not a public ROW.

The repo may be trespassing, however, it's doubtful the court would hold those charges if your indeed in default of a loan. Since you are basically in violation of holding something that the bank owns on your property.....

My impression was that we were discussing the ten or so feet?

 

[Len-2A Training]

IANAL and don't get involved with repos in any way.

However, IIRC somewhere back in the 1st 100 or so messages I seem to remember that someone pointed out that in the "fine print" of any loan/secured note agreement was something that gave the right of access to whoever loaned the money. Thus, default on the loan and you've already given "permission" to the loan company/it's representatives (repo man) to access your property (short of cutting off locks on gates/opening buildings) to get back THEIR SECURED PROPERTY.

 

[terraformer]

IANAL and don't get involved with repos in any way.

However, IIRC somewhere back in the 1st 100 or so messages I seem to remember that someone pointed out that in the "fine print" of any loan/secured note agreement was something that gave the right of access to whoever loaned the money. Thus, default on the loan and you've already given "permission" to the loan company/it's representatives (repo man) to access your property (short of cutting off locks on gates/opening buildings) to get back THEIR SECURED PROPERTY.

But there is another aspect to this that somewhere has been discussed. There is a fundamental ability for someone to come calling on your home and not be a trespasser. The idea is if you put the doorbell on the door, they have every right to traverse from the street to said door to announce themselves unless one has placed some announcement system on/outside the property line. Sort of like how rich folks put gates around their homes but a pa/intercom at the gate. So in essence, the homeowner retains ownership/rights to the driveway, but can't limit access by default unless they wall it off. They can tell you after your announcement you must leave, but that is post facto. Or so I understood it when it was explained. I may not have it correct though so HC can weigh in if I got that wrong.

 

[MassMark]

Now, that is not what he Half Cocked was saying. If you buy your 4 acres in NH is it legal for the UPS guy to drive on your land to deliver your ammo to you? Yes, and he isn't trespassing, unless you put up a gate and signs.

I'd have to go back and dig it up, but I seem to remember Half Cocked having said exactly that in a recent thread, (though I could have misread it). I'm paraphrasing, but HC indicated that an LEO for instance can drive parallel to your home without cause and it would not be a violation of your rights...A gate should make no difference and I'd love to see a cite which states that erecting a gate is necessary to transform your own property from a public to a private way, ot that installing a doorbell gives people an automatic pass to trespass...

 

[theGringo]

There's some leeway there if you driveway extends out past a public sidewalk, but only that part of it.

Anyway, if I looked out my window at 3am and saw:

You can bet I'm armed.

Dear God! Take that picture back!

Some sharp salesman once evidently convinced homely girls that facial piercings would make them more ... desireable. I admire that man's salesmanship. But, as we all know, a hog with a nose ring is still just a hog, albeit a perforated one. Tattoed eyebrows don't make an ugly girl pretty, either. FAIL.

As for driveways, I once called Worcester PD and had a car towed out of mine. The guy might have been told he had a right of access, but evidently it didn't extend to having his car there in the morning.

 

[Zappa]

IANAL and don't get involved with repos in any way.

However, IIRC somewhere back in the 1st 100 or so messages I seem to remember that someone pointed out that in the "fine print" of any loan/secured note agreement was something that gave the right of access to whoever loaned the money. Thus, default on the loan and you've already given "permission" to the loan company/it's representatives (repo man) to access your property (short of cutting off locks on gates/opening buildings) to get back THEIR SECURED PROPERTY.

This is correct. Legally Recognized Written Permission was granted to the lender the minute you signed for the loan.

 

[GSG]

But there is another aspect to this that somewhere has been discussed. There is a fundamental ability for someone to come calling on your home and not be a trespasser. The idea is if you put the doorbell on the door, they have every right to traverse from the street to said door to announce themselves unless one has placed some announcement system on/outside the property line. Sort of like how rich folks put gates around their homes but a pa/intercom at the gate. So in essence, the homeowner retains ownership/rights to the driveway, but can't limit access by default unless they wall it off. They can tell you after your announcement you must leave, but that is post facto. Or so I understood it when it was explained. I may not have it correct though so HC can weigh in if I got that wrong.

Exactly. If that weren't the case, the only way to avoid a trespassing charge would be to stand on the street with a bullhorn.

 

[Martlet]

Exactly. If that weren't the case, the only way to avoid a trespassing charge would be to stand on the street with a bullhorn.

It isn't trespassing unless you've been forbidden entry.

 

[GSG]

It isn't trespassing unless you've been forbidden entry.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

 

[Half Cocked]

There isn't. Sometimes cops hear things that they want to believe to be true, since it assists in violating your rights.

Curtilage—Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Usually, there is a great deal of confusion concerning this issue. Additionally, it is often thought that curtilage wraps completely around every dwelling house. This is not always true. Generally, every dwelling house has a walkway or stairway permitting members of the public to enter onto the property to approach the dwelling, usually the front door. This area would NOT be within the curtilage. The reason why is that is constructed for the very purpose of permitting a number of persons to access the premises. Therefore, if a police officer were to enter upon the walkway, the owner of the property cannot demand that the officer first have a search warrant. If the walkway or stairway is designed whereby the person must enter through an enclosed area, i.e., a porch, before accessing the front door, this too
will be an area construed to be outside of the curtilage—even though it is enclosed.

BACK DOOR OR SIDE DOOR: Many homes utilize the side or back door—each case must be looked at separately.

SELF-CREATING ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS: If the homeowner were to completely fence-in his yard whereby the only means of access would be through a gated buzzer system, then the entire property, from the actual structure out to the fence would be within the curtilage. Therefore, if police were to jump over this type of fence system, they will be required to satisfy the 4th AMD, by having either a warrant, consent, or exigent/emergency circumstances.

BACK YARD CURTILAGE IS MORE PRONOUNCED: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 12 (2001), the court held that police required a search warrant to enter the rear yard to inspect a cage housing a dead dog—even where the cage could be seen from the front of the home while standing on the driveway. Just because the cage could be seen from that vantage point does not demonstrate that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The following cases all deal with issues of curtilage:

CURTILAGE—DRIVEWAY MAY NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY: A person, depending on the circumstances, may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway. In Commonwealth v. Simmons, 392 Mass. 45 (1984), a rape victim was taken to the defendant’s house to observe his motor vehicle parked in the driveway. The Court held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway, even though there were posted “no trespassing” signs on the property. The driveway was the normal means of access to the home, along which visitors and tenants on the property would pass on the way to the front door.

See also Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 2), 411 Mass. 157 (1991), where the SJC allowed the police to seize an automobile parked in a driveway on exigent circumstances.

CURTILAGE—PORCH NOT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE: In Commonwealth v. Pietrass, 392 Mass. 892 (1984), the Court stated that if a porch were one that a visitor would naturally expect to pass through to gain access to the front door, then it would not be part of the curtilage entitled to protection.

 

[Martlet]

Curtilage—Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Usually, there is a great deal of confusion concerning this issue. Additionally, it is often thought that curtilage wraps completely around every dwelling house. This is not always true. Generally, every dwelling house has a walkway or stairway permitting members of the public to enter onto the property to approach the dwelling, usually the front door. This area would NOT be within the curtilage. The reason why is that is constructed for the very purpose of permitting a number of persons to access the premises. Therefore, if a police officer were to enter upon the walkway, the owner of the property cannot demand that the officer first have a search warrant. If the walkway or stairway is designed whereby the person must enter through an enclosed area, i.e., a porch, before accessing the front door, this too
will be an area construed to be outside of the curtilage—even though it is enclosed.

BACK DOOR OR SIDE DOOR: Many homes utilize the side or back door—each case must be looked at separately.

SELF-CREATING ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS: If the homeowner were to completely fence-in his yard whereby the only means of access would be through a gated buzzer system, then the entire property, from the actual structure out to the fence would be within the curtilage. Therefore, if police were to jump over this type of fence system, they will be required to satisfy the 4th AMD, by having either a warrant, consent, or exigent/emergency circumstances.

BACK YARD CURTILAGE IS MORE PRONOUNCED: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 12 (2001), the court held that police required a search warrant to enter the rear yard to inspect a cage housing a dead dog—even where the cage could be seen from the front of the home while standing on the driveway. Just because the cage could be seen from that vantage point does not demonstrate that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The following cases all deal with issues of curtilage:

CURTILAGE—DRIVEWAY MAY NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY: A person, depending on the circumstances, may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway. In Commonwealth v. Simmons, 392 Mass. 45 (1984), a rape victim was taken to the defendant’s house to observe his motor vehicle parked in the driveway. The Court held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway, even though there were posted “no trespassing” signs on the property. The driveway was the normal means of access to the home, along which visitors and tenants on the property would pass on the way to the front door.

See also Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 2), 411 Mass. 157 (1991), where the SJC allowed the police to seize an automobile parked in a driveway on exigent circumstances.

CURTILAGE—PORCH NOT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE: In Commonwealth v. Pietrass, 392 Mass. 892 (1984), the Court stated that if a porch were one that a visitor would naturally expect to pass through to gain access to the front door, then it would not be part of the curtilage entitled to protection.

All that is fine, until you're forbidden access. Then it's trespassing. You can come in my front yard, up my driveway, and even onto my porch. Until I tell you to leave.

You specifically stated:

Your driveway is not private property (legally). The public has a right of access.

That is unequivocally false.

 

[Half Cocked]

That is unequivocally false.

No as I stated... it is unequivocally true.

 

[Martlet]

No as I stated... it is unequivocally true.

Yeah? Try accessing my driveway after I tell you to leave.

 

[namedpipes]

Equivocally, schmeclivocally.

HC, go stand in Martlet's driveway. He will lawfully order you to leave the property and if you do not have your warrant/exigent crap, you will be trespassing if you don't leave.

I expect he'll sue the crap out of you.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

or he can come stand on my driveway and have me tell him to buzz off. Im all for these kinds of exercises.

 

[Raoul Duke]

1. We don't know the whole story.

2. There's "right" and there's "right" and never the twain shall meet.

While we busily discuss the details of our subjugation, only a few of us took a moment to say, 'This is F@cked."

I see no reason why you shouldn't approach the subject cocked, locked and leveled. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If the alarm bells don't ring in your head that you shouldn't be under ANYONES's car ON THEIR PROPERTY at 2 in the morning then frankly, perhaps you're TSTL and nature's just thinning the gene pool.

Either way, I have about as much sympathy for a shot repo man as I do for a mugged yuppie in Dorcester. But hey, every job has it's risks and perhaps Repo men are ok with it; Hell I have to watch out for eye-strain. If so, more power to them. Just don't let me hear the whining.

On the other hand I see no reason for repo men to have to proceed unarmed either.

MA laws have not only beaten the cojones out of it's residents. No, it's worse. Instead, the chain of command from the rectum in charge of our statehouse to the tactical goons who's safety is so Fing precious, these assclowns have helped to understand that we are, essentially, helpless monkeys who cannot be relied upon to make up our own minds about anything, much less take care of ourselves.

Back to your regularly scheduled pandering...

We're all so F ing pround of how law abiding we are regardless of how stupid the law is. Does it ever occur to anyone that this is a purposefull side effect of the licensing system. Any time these pillow bitters can separate us further they will. Why look, allready we have the

1. Good little boys and girls
2. Legal Dissenters
3. Moral Relativists
4. Objectivist cranky pants....that's me, perhaps Martlett, definitely Derek...

 

[jcetto0351]

my truck is being towed at 3 AM??? I think he did the right thing by telling the girl to call the police and then intervening into what he thought was an auto theft?

I know repomen face a great amount of danger in their job but snatching a man's truck at 3 AM shouldn't be allowed if you aren't ready to meet a CONFUSED and pissed off owner!

I don't agree with the decision to take his license away... he wasn't trying to prevent a repo, but rather was trying to prevent an auto theft!

 

[PWM]

He was being a hero, got what he deserved. We all have guns, that doesn't mean you can jam one in a guys face with a tow truck when you know damn well you haven't paid the note.

You STILL are required to call the police... his LIFE was not in danger he should not have had time to get the gun because he would have been on the phone with a 911 operator. Its all backwards you see.

 

[lowbuckbob]

I don't mean to throw gasoline on the fire, but...

CHAPTER 266. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Chapter 266: Section 120. Entry upon private property after being forbidden as trespass; prima facie evidence; penalties; arrest; tenants or occupants excepted

Section 120. Whoever, without right enters or remains in or upon the dwelling house, buildings, boats or improved or enclosed land, wharf, or pier of another, or enters or remains in a school bus, as defined in section 1 of chapter 90, after having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises, whether directly or by notice posted thereon, or in violation of a court order pursuant to section thirty-four B of chapter two hundred and eight or section three or four of chapter two hundred and nine A, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both such fine and imprisonment. Proof that a court has given notice of such a court order to the alleged offender shall be prima facie evidence that the notice requirement of this section has been met. A person who is found committing such trespass may be arrested by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or police officer and kept in custody in a convenient place, not more than twenty-four hours, Sunday excepted, until a complaint can be made against him for the offence, and he be taken upon a warrant issued upon such complaint.

This section shall not apply to tenants or occupants of residential premises who, having rightfully entered said premises at the commencement of the tenancy or occupancy, remain therein after such tenancy or occupancy has been or is alleged to have been terminated. The owner or landlord of said premises may recover possession thereof only through appropriate civil proceedings.