Trespassing in Thomson Township and Sham Investigation
Marvin Pirila
1 N Cloquet Rd W
Esko, MN 55733
October 20, 2012
Tom Pertler
Carlton County Attorney
PO Box 190
Carlton, MN 55718-0190
Dear Mr. Pertler and Mr. Berglund;
I received the “public documents” your office shared regarding our trespassing complaint.
I can say with conviction and proof that no real investigation or follow through was exercised.
Pursuant to Fond du Lac investigator Russ Rule’s supplemental report:
- -He conducted phone interviews with only the offenders, building inspector John Gulland and fire chief Jeffrey Juntunen.
-He failed to interview any of the four other witnesses: Marvin Pirila, Gail Francette, Nicholas Perfetti, Jake Fjeld, and Mark Blomquist.
-Officer Russ Rule rescheduled his first meeting with Marvin Pirila due to a scheduling conflict he had. The rescheduled meeting was set for the Wal-Mart parking lot. Mr. Pirila and his wife Gail Francette waited approximately an hour for the absent Mr. Rule. No call was received. No contact was attempted by Mr. Rule after the initial rescheduling time.
Discrepancies and time-delay issues:
-Mr. Pirila filed the complaint, case no. PD10309104, on 6/24/10 with officer Tom Foldesi.
-Officer Rule claims that Mr. Foldesi referred this case to him in September of 2011, 15 months after the complaint. The Incident Report, ICR #10-309104, shows it was actually forwarded to Carlton County on 7/2/10.
Failure to investigate timely or with impartiality
-Page 1 of 2 of Office Foldesi’s Narrative states, “It was found out that Chief Foldesi made attempts to receive statements from Jeffrey Juntunen and John Gulland and ultimately did not receive any statement at the time because of the Law Suite [sic].” Not a single mention of attempted interviews of witnesses Gail Francette, Nicholas Perfetti, Mark Blomquist, or Jake Fjeld.
-The August 17, 2011, letter from County Attorney Thomas Pertler to Chief Foldesi specifically requested that Mark Blomquist, Jake Fjeld, Marvin Pirila, and Gail Francette be interviewed. None of these ever took place. This letter also asked that any and all records should be obtained that were maintained by Chief Juntunen and Inspector Gulland or their superiors, pertaining to the inspections done at the Pirila/Francette property. None were produced and no proof that any such attempt to obtain occurred.
-Page 2 of 2 states, “In 2012 the Law Suite [sic] against Thompson [sic] was resolved.” This shows a purposeful delay to hinder the plaintiff’s lawsuit against Thomson Township.
-Page 2 of 2 states, “…The old Washington School as he had seen a large pile of old latch and plaster next to the building. He [Juntunen] went into the building as contractors were working with machinery going. He advised the contractors and then left the building. At the time Juntunen stated the doors were not locked and would have knocked but did not think the workers would have heard him.’ This contrasts with the contractor’s immediate report. Contractors Mark Blomquist and Jake Fjeld witnessed fire chief Jeffrey Juntunen on two different days inside the building. On one of these days, Mr. Juntunen, they said was inside the locked building when they arrived. On the second day, they said he entered the locked building while they were working. Mr. Juntunen did not identify himself and wandered about the building at will. He neither had the consent of owners, nor requested it. There was also no notice of his visit either by phone or in writing. The first official notice of Mr. Juntunen’s illegal entry came via a September 5, 2008, letter from Thomson Township attorney David Pritchett citing alleged fire code violations. The slats slowly accumulated outside and in no way necessitated an immediate, illegal entry into private property. Curtilage rights did not apply. If Mr. Juntunen wanted to act responsibly he would have written a letter or phone the owners at any point to discuss it. He simply decided to go on a roaming venture inside their building without their knowledge.
-Page 2 of 2: Officer Russ Rule claims, “It is believed that Juntunen was doing his job as a Fire Chief protecting property from a possible disaster or fire.” As the fire chief or fire marshal, Mr. Juntunen is subject to the rules of entry pursuant to Minnesota Statute 299F.09. This statutes specifically states, “The …chief of the fire department of each city where a fire department is established … at all reasonable hours may enter into all buildings and upon all premises within their jurisdiction for the purpose of examination, after proper consent from the occupant or owner or pursuant to an administrative search warrant. Mr. Juntunen readily admits he had no consent and no evidence of an administrative search warrant. Without either, this is clearly illegal entry.
Problems with Jeffrey Juntunen’s taped statement to Officer Rule
-Page 2 of 3: “… my concern when I stopped at the property was they were taking lath from the old lath and plaster and throwing it out a window. And it was piled all the way up to the second floor right against the building and as fire chief my concern was anybody could have light [sic] that on fire and ah, we could have had fire throughout or in the building it would have entered the windows so I stopped there to try and find Mr. Pirila the doors were open and they were not locked and I went inside and all I could find at the that time was contractors who were working in the building, Mr. Pirila was not present so I did tell one of the contractors ah, why I was on sight and asked em if they would relay that to Mr. Pirila.” This is yet another contradiction to their statements.
-Page 3 of 3: Officer Russ Rule asks, “…But as a fire chief do you have the right to go into a building?” to which Jeffrey Juntunen responds, “Ah, when the doors are open you know.” This is clear admission that rules of entry pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299F.09 were violated. There is no provision under the law allowing entry given the circumstances. Mr. Juntunen tries to justify his position, “A situation like that I guess it’s no different than any other building ah, you know knocking on the door and asking for permission ah, wasn’t you know, wasn’t an option because contractors were running power tools and, the building was very large.” Mr. Juntunen is suggesting that if knocking and requesting permission isn’t possible, he has no choice but to enter the private property. This would mean that every unlocked door in the community is legally permissible to enter if no one answers to knocking. In this particular case, he admits that knocking wasn’t an option so he just took it upon himself to enter. He made this choice knowing he never attempted to call the owners, never tried writing a letter, never tried leaving a note, nothing. This was a deliberate action with the full knowledge of entry procedures.
Problems with John Gulland’s taped statement to Officer Rule
-On page 1 of 10, John Gulland states,’ …you know as far as a specific date or whatever you know I don’t have any other records or whatever that was, to you know to just answer you totally honestly.” If Mr. Gulland had been on an authorized inspection there would have been an inspection log on site and in the Thomson Township files, but there were none.
-On page 1 of 10, Officer Rule asked, “…did you have permission to go there or is it for inspection do you need permission to go in there?” Building Inspector John Gulland replied, “Well um when you have an open building permit ah building inspector is allowed to go there and make inspections…”
-Mr. Gulland was obligated to follow Subp. 7, Right of entry, under Minn. R. 1300.0110 regarding entry procedures. “If it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the code or if the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition contrary to or in violation of the code that makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous, the building official or designee may enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by the code, provided that if the structure or premises is occupied, credentials must be presented to the occupant and entry requested. If the structure or premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.” Mr. Gulland made no such attempts.
-Mr. Gulland admits to being a construction inspector for 25 years. Obviously, he would have knowledge of proper entry procedures.
-If Mr. Gulland felt limited in his capacity to infringe upon the private property rights of Mr. Pirila and Ms. Francette, he would have rigidly followed his ministerial and operational level duties. He did not. There was not a single entry on the on-site inspection card, and just one record of an inspection kept at Thomson Township.
Collusion between Thomson Township Office Tom Foldesi, Thomson Township, Carlton County Thom Pertler, FDL Officer Russ Rule, Assistant County Attorney Jesse Berglund, and Judge Dale A. Wolf
-Mr. Foldesi failed to attempt any interview outside of the two perpetrators
-Thomson Township participated in wrongdoing by failing to conduct any internal inquiry. There were no records applicable to these illegal entries.
-Thom Pertler refused to investigate in the least until the lawsuit was officially over.
-Russ Rule failed to interview anyone other than the accused and when given specific testimony admitting trespassing, disavowed it.
-Jesse Berglund said they wouldn’t waste county resources to argue the case because it was a misdemeanor he thought he couldn’t win. County attorneys pursue misdemeanor cases every single day.
-Page 5 of 10 of Officer Russ Rule’s taped statement with John Gulland. When Officer Rule commented, "Yeah, yeah well (AI) it sounded like nobody wanted to give statements until the law suit was finished" Gulland replied, "Well I think that's, I think kinda what we were instructed to do and that's why I kinda wanted to just make sure that I wasn't making a mistake and I'm not trying to..." It was more than unethical, unprofessional, and unwarranted of the Carlton County Attorney's office to simply wait out the lawsuit; this is undeniably an illegal suppression of evidence that was pertinent to the lawsuit and clearly prejudicial.
-John Gulland's taped statement clearly shows the closeness between Officer Tom Foldesi, Jeffrey Juntunen, and John Gulland. A person doesn't easily speak of others in a first name basis as Mr. Gulland did without close affiliation. This relationship was downplayed significantly during the lawsuit.
Additional Evidence
-Admissions from Defendants Thomson Township, Thomson Township Fire Department, John Gulland and Jeffrey Juntunen's Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions (Revised): Admission #46. Jeffrey Juntunen admits he made entries without consent into plaintiff's property. Response: Admit Jeffrey Juntunen entered Plaintiffs' property to enforce fire code regarding large pile of debris.
-Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen's Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories: Interrogatory #22. Did you seek the consent of the owners prior to entering the premises at 1 N Cloquet Rd W? Answer: Objection, this Interrogatory is argumentative and contains facts not in evidence. Objection, this Interrogatory is vague. Notwithstanding said objection, no.
1. If not, why? The doors were open.
5. Why did you neglect to contact the owners after your visits? I was sure the
contractor would pass my concerns along to the owners.
7. Why didn't you leave a note that you had visited? Objection, this
Interrogatory is argumentative.
-Unlike his claim to Officer Russ Rule, Jeffrey Juntunen simply assumes the contractor will pass along the fact he had visited. There was no message relayed to them.
-Interrogatory 23: How did you gain access to the inside of the Old Washington School? Answer: When I entered the property to request the owner remove the large pile of debris from the exterior, I entered through the unlocked east entry door.
Failures of the Carlton County Attorneys Office
-Failing to conduct an impartial investigation where all witnesses were interviewed, not just the perpetrators.
-Failing to uphold the statutes, rules, and constitutional provisions that apply.
-Failing to perform any investigation for 24 months and then only a sham one after that.
-Failing to conduct an immediate investigation because they, according to Thom Pertler, did not want to benefit the plaintiff’s lawsuit against Thomson Township. Mr. Pertler’s very words.
Admission by Carlton County Attorney's office as to what building inspectors/fire chiefs must do to gain entry
The August 17, 2011, letter from County Attorney Thomas Pertler to Chief Foldesi, item 2, states, "By law, I believe they [Inspector and Fire Chief] are required to maintain a record of each visit/inspection regarding the date, nature, and result of the visit/inspection." These required records do not exist and exemplify the legitimate entry of either Gulland or Juntunen.
Mr. Todd Milosevich, Victim/Witness Services, Carlton County, obtained an email from dfuentes@duluthmn.gov on July 28, 2011 at 8:54 AM with an attachment regarding Minnesota State Fire Code 104. Section 104.3 and 104.3.1 apply. Both of these references make it clear that trespassing occurred. Similarly, official records, approvals, and inspections are governed by Sections 104.6, 104.6.1, and 104.6.2, respectively. Again, Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen failed to keep these mandated records.
All evidence, delays, statements, and omissions from the record show that you have failed to investigate this matter professionally. You have personally withheld any action for “political” as well as “personal” reasons.
When we (Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette) had a pending lawsuit against Thomson Township and the individuals mentioned herein, you said you would not investigate until the case had been decided.
The duties of a county attorney is listed under Minn. Stat. § 388.051, and include under Subd. 1: The county attorney shall: …(c) prosecute…to the extent prescribed by law, gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors, and violations of municipal ordinances, charter provisions and rules or regulations. There is no legal authority in your defense that allows you to withhold an investigation because of a pending lawsuit.
You had previously stated that you would do nothing that might benefit us in our case. No one was asking for prejudicial treatment, but only a fair and justified investigation, and charges if warranted. You effectively positioned yourself and Carlton County against us by doing nothing and making this a “political stand.” You essentially aided the defense of Thomson Township, Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen, and Building Inspector John Gulland by failing to do your required duties. You were asked to perform your professional duties and chose not for personal reasons.
This case was supposed to be based on the laws of this state, not the laws, individuals, and situations you decide to pursue. I believe, as many others, that it is this failure of appointed officials to honestly pursue legal justice that greatly emboldens others under their umbrella, such as the building inspector and fire chief, to willfully and wantonly trample the rights of private citizens.
Mr. Pertler, you have continued a dangerous trend of public officials, highly evident in Carlton County, to play judge and jury on matters explicitly stated by law, but enforced according to personal reasons.
You are an appointed individual by the public, not special interest groups, and individuals. How can anyone possibly feel that you and your office is fair and just with all individuals in Carlton County, and not turn a blind eye to those that work for Carlton County.
Sincerely,
Marvin Pirila
Below is a summary of the correspondence previously share and yet ignored by you and your office.
Thomson Township residents Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette filed trespassing charges against building inspector John Gulland and current fire chief, Jeffrey Juntunen of Thomson Township in 2009. Two contractors reported finding Mr. Juntunen inside the locked building upon their arrival in September of 2008. On yet another day, he entered the locked building while they were working. The contractors, Jake Fjeld and Mark Blomquist, said he did not introduce himself and simply wandered about at will. They saw he was wearing a uniform and guessed he must have been a firefighter. A letter from Thomson Township attorney was the first time the residents learned who had been entering their building, Jeff Juntunen. Based on his entries, Mr. Juntunen alleged fire code violations. Common property rights prevail, rendering it illegal to enter private property without the consent of the owners. “No trespassing,” signs were posted throughout the property and were ignored.
This was not just a simple trespass; it was trespassing that involved entering the private building of another. This was a non-emergency situation where no consent was sought beforehand.
The contractors were sure the building was locked each time, leaving one to wonder how he managed to get inside. It turns out that Thomson Township had no key policy and didn’t know who had keys to the Old Washington School. As there were still old doors in place from the time Thomson Township owned the building, it was possible that was how entry was made. The residents bought this same building from Thomson Township.
John Gulland tagged along with Thomson Township Plumbing Inspector Paul Sandstrom on a plumbing inspection on August 1, 2008, without seeking consent of owners. In March of 2009, John Gulland was found inside the locked building when Marvin Pirila, Gail Francette, and Nick Perfetti showed up for a scheduled inspection. Mr. Gulland would not explain how he entered the building when it was locked and refused to answer.
In the spring of 2009, Mr. Gulland began making unauthorized weekly inspections, even when there was little or no work, being completed. This was done at least three times before Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry investigator Barry Greive contacted Mr. Gulland. Mr. Gulland claimed that architect Alan Adams had invited him to attend, but after Mr. Pirila contacted him and told him (Adams) he did not need to attend, Mr. Gulland was obligated to stop. He did not until Mr. Greive intervened.
Any entry, particularly on a non-emergency basis, must be after the consent of the owners is obtained. If an inspection is requested and refused, the building inspector or fire chief has to obtain a warrant. In the absence of either, no inspection is to take place. In our case, consent was not sought, not granted, and no warrant served.
Jeffrey Juntunen’s Trespasses (2 Counts)
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 541.05 Subd. 1 (3) Jeffrey Juntunen has committed trespass.
On or about September 5, 2008, Jeffrey Juntunen was witnessed by contractors Mark Blomquist and Jake Fjeld, on two different days, inside the building at 1 N Cloquet Road W in Thomson Township. Mr. Juntunen was inside the locked building upon their arrival one day, and entered on his own yet another day, through a locked door. Mr. Juntunen did not identify himself and simply wandered about the building at will. He neither had the consent of owners, nor requested it. There was also no notice of his visit either by phone or in writing. The first official notice that he had been in the building was via a letter by David Pritchett on September 5, 2008, stating that “There are large piles of demolition materials both within and outside the building, in violation of state fire code.” It is believed that Jeffrey Juntunen possessed his old key for the Old Washington School and used it to grant himself access these days.
John Gulland’s Trespasses (Multiple)
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 541.05 Subd. 1 (3) John Gulland has committed trespass.
1. On 2/15/07 John Gulland entered premises illegal and later based a “Stop Work Order” on this trespass.
2. On 8/1/08 John Gulland accompanied Paul Sandstrom on a plumbing inspection without consent from owners.
3. In March of 2009 John Gulland was found inside the locked building when Marvin Pirila, Gail Francette, and Nick Perfetti showed up for a scheduled inspection. Mr. Gulland would not explain how he entered the building when it was locked when confronted by Gail Francette.
4. John Gulland confessed to Marvin Pirila on the phone that he had let himself in.
5. Between April and June of 2009, John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on two to three building inspections without consent of owners.
6. On 4/30/09 John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on an inspection he knew was without consent from owners.
7. On 5/7/09 John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on an inspection he knew was without consent from owners.
8. On 6/4/09 John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on an inspection he knew was without consent from owners.
MARVIN PIRILA & GAIL FRANCETTE allege trespass and harassment by
JOHN GULLAND and JEFFREY JUNTUNEN
John Gulland and Jeffrey Juntunen criminally harassed property owners Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette. Both Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen engaged in intentional conduct which they knew or had reason to know would cause the owners, under the circumstances, to feel threatened, oppressed, persecuted, and intimidated; and caused this reaction on the part of the owners. These are violations of Minn. Stat. § 609.749, Subd. I. Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen both engaged in conduct that included returning to owners property without consent.
The intentional and reckless act by Jeffrey Juntunen and John Gulland has caused harm by entering Mr. Pirila and Ms. Francette’s property without their permission (trespass), and dangerous conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress).
Property owners have suffered tremendous familial, financial, and emotional distress from ongoing harassing conduct from Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen.
The acts of the Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen, including trespassing and allegations based on trespass, showed deliberate disregard for the rights of property owners.
These violations require no proof of specific intent (Minn. Stat. § 609.749, Subd. 1a)
609.605 TRESPASS.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. (a) The following terms have the meanings given them for
purposes of this section.
(i) "Premises" means real property and any appurtenant building or structure.
(ii) "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building used by an individual as a place of residence on either a full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home as defined in section 168.011, subdivision 8.
(iii) "Construction site" means the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building or structure.
(iv) "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work.
(v) "Posted," as used:
(A) in clause (9), means the placement of a sign at least 11 inches square in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration, or repair, and additional signs in at least two conspicuous places for each ten acres being protected. The sign must carry an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the notice, followed by the word "owner" if the person giving the notice is the holder of legal title to the land on which the construction site is located or by the word "occupant" if the person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is a lawful occupant of the land; and
(B) in clause (10), means the placement of signs that:
(I) state "no trespassing" or similar terms;
(II) display letters at least two inches high;
(III) state that Minnesota law prohibits trespassing on the property; and
(IV) are posted in a conspicuous place and at intervals of 500 feet or less.
(vi) "Business licensee," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), includes a representative of a building trades labor or management organization.
a. "Building" has the meaning given in section 609.581, subdivision 2.
(b) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally:
(1) permits domestic animals or fowls under the actor's control to go on the land of another within a city;
(2) interferes unlawfully with a monument, sign, or pointer erected or marked to designate a point of a boundary, line or a political subdivision, or of a tract of land;
(3) trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor;
(4) occupies or enters the dwelling or locked or posted building of another, without claim of right or consent of the owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent, except in an emergency situation;
(5) enters the premises of another with intent to take or injure any fruit, fruit trees, or vegetables growing on the premises, without the permission of the owner or occupant;
(6) enters or is found on the premises of a public or private cemetery without authorization during hours the cemetery is posted as closed to the public;
(7) returns to the property of another with the intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress in or threaten another, after being told to leave the property and not to return, if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;
(8) returns to the property of another within one year after being told to leave the property and not to return, if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;
(9) enters the locked or posted construction site of another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, unless the person is a business licensee; or
(10) enters the locked or posted aggregate mining site of another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, unless the person is a business licensee.
Subd. 2. Gross misdemeanor. Whoever trespasses upon the grounds of a facility providing emergency shelter services for battered women, as defined under section 611A.31, subdivision 3, or of a facility providing transitional housing for battered women and their children, without claim of right or consent of one who has right to give consent, and refuses to depart from the grounds of the facility on demand of one who has right to give consent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Subd. 3.[Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34]
Subd. 4. Trespasses on school property. (a) It is a misdemeanor for a person to enter or be found in a public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or secondary school building unless the person:
(1) is an enrolled student in, a parent or guardian of an enrolled student in, or an employee of the school or school district;
(2) has permission or an invitation from a school official to be in the building;
(3) is attending a school event, class, or meeting to which the person, the public, or a student's family is invited; or
(4) has reported the person's presence in the school building in the manner required for visitors to the school.
(b) It is a misdemeanor for a person to be on the roof of a public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or secondary school building unless the person has permission from a school official to be on the roof of the building.
(c) It is a gross misdemeanor for a group of three or more persons to enter or be found in a public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or secondary school building unless one of the persons:
(1) is an enrolled student in, a parent or guardian of an enrolled student in, or an employee of the school or school district;
(2) has permission or an invitation from a school official to be in the building;
(3) is attending a school event, class, or meeting to which the person, the public, or a student's family is invited; or
(4) has reported the person's presence in the school building in the manner required for visitors to the school.
(d) It is a misdemeanor for a person to enter or be found on school property within one year after being told by the school principal or the principal's designee to leave the property and not to return, unless the principal or the principal's designee has given the person permission to return to the property. As used in this paragraph, "school property" has the meaning given in section 152.01, subdivision 14a, clauses (1) and (3).
(e) A school principal or a school employee designated by the school principal to maintain order on school property, who has reasonable cause to believe that a person is violating this subdivision may detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable period of time pending the arrival of a peace officer. A school principal or designated school employee is not civilly or criminally liable for any action authorized under this paragraph if the person's action is based on reasonable cause.
(f) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the person violated this subdivision within the preceding four hours. The arrest may be made even though the violation did not occur in the peace officer's presence.
Subd. 5. Certain trespass on agricultural land.
(a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the person enters the posted premises of another on which cattle, bison, sheep, goats, swine, horses, poultry, farmed cervidae, farmed ratitae, aquaculture stock, or other species of domestic animals for commercial production are kept, without the consent of the owner or lawful occupant of the land.
(b) "Domestic animal," for purposes of this section, has the meaning given in section 609.599.
(c) "Posted," as used in paragraph (a), means the placement of a sign at least 11 inches square in a conspicuous place at each roadway entry to the premises. The sign must provide notice of a biosecurity area and wording such as: "Biosecurity measures are in force. No entrance beyond this point without authorization." The sign may also contain a telephone number or a location for obtaining such authorization.
(d) The provisions of this subdivision do not apply to employees or agents of the state or county when serving in a regulatory capacity and conducting an inspection on posted premises where domestic animals are kept.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.605; 1971 c 23 s 62; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1976 c 251 s 1; 1978 c 512 s 1; 1981 c 365 s 9; 1982 c 408 s 2; 1985 c 159 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 307 s 3; 1989 c 5 s 9; 1989 c 261 s 5; 1990 c 426 art 1 s 54; 1993 c 326 art 1 s 14; art 2 s 13; art 4 s 32; 1993 c 366 s 13; 1994 c 465 art 1 s 60; 1995 c 226 art 3 s 48; 2004 c 254 s 46; 2005 c 136 art 17 s 41,42
Trespassing - Background
Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. Trespassing as it relates to real estate law means entering onto land without consent of the landowner. There are both criminal and civil TRESPASS laws. Criminal trespass law is enforced by police, sheriffs, or park rangers. Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the trespasser may be responsible, regardless of whether a crime has been committed. Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request.
The existence of consent may be implied from the landowner's conduct, from custom, or from the circumstances. Consent may be implied if these factors exist: the landowner was unavailable to give consent and immediate action is necessary to save a life or prevent a serious injury. Additionally, some states may extend this protection to animals. While the phrase "forgive us our trespasses" if oft repeated, it is important to note that trespassing is generally not forgiven. This is because trespassing is often a very serious offense that the law does not look lightly upon. However, many assume that trespassing is "no big deal". One reason for this is that media depictions of individuals with "No Trespassing" signs are that of curmudgeonly, miserly individuals who embody a whole host of misanthropic traits. Often, the conclusion of a feature will see such an individual learning the error of his ways and removing the no trespassing sign.
Depictions such as this are psychologically damaging because they demean the importance of trespassing laws. These laws are there for very good reasons. When a person enters into restricted territory a great safety risk is posed to both the trespasser and the person on the property. Again, that is why trespassing laws exist and that is why they must always be taken seriously.
By definition, criminal trespass is the instance of willfully entering and remaining unlawfully in an enclosed dwelling such as a home or business; willful entering or remaining in an enclosed and restricted area that is obviously designed to exclude unauthorized entry; entering any property (enclosed or open) when the property owner has explicitly told the individual they are not welcome on the property. It is important to note, however, if an individual is unaware that entry to an area is restricted then he might be exonerated of criminal trespass.
Civil trespassing lawsuits are generally brought forth when property damage has occurred. Actually, the laws surrounding civil trespass laws are fairly all encompassing. There is precedent for civil trespass actions to be taken against those liable for car accidents. (For a more detailed explanation as to whether or not a potential civil suit falls under the category of trespassing, it would be best to discuss the specifics of the case with an attorney) In terms of civil liability, a person who commits trespass may be held liable for damages that have been inflicted as a result of the trespass. Therefore, the trespasser may be sued for damages. Actually, the trespasser can be both criminally charged and sued in civil court.
It is also important to point out that the criminal prosecution and civil litigation of trespass, like many other criminal and civil offenses, is subject to the statute of limitations defined by the Pennsylvania judicial code. Specifically, the law states that the statute of limitations on both criminal and civil trespassing is two years.
609.749 HARASSMENT; STALKING; PENALTIES.
Subdivision 1. Definition.
As used in this section, "harass" means to engage in intentional conduct which:
(1) the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and
(2) causes this reaction on the part of the victim.
Subd. 1a. No proof of specific intent required.
In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.
Subd. 2. Harassment and stalking crimes.
(a) A person who harasses another by committing any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:
(1) directly or indirectly manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights of another by the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) stalks, follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through technological or other means;
(3) returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;
Subd. 5. Pattern of harassing conduct.
(a) A person who engages in a pattern of harassing conduct with respect to a single victim or one or more members of a single household which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel terrorized or to fear bodily harm and which does cause this reaction on the part of the victim, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, a "pattern of harassing conduct" means two or more acts within a five-year period that violate or attempt to violate the provisions of any of the following or a similar law of another state, the United States, the District of Columbia, tribal lands, or United States territories:
609.748 HARASSMENT; RESTRAINING ORDER.
Subdivision 1. Definition.
For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them in this subdivision.
(a) "Harassment" includes:
(1) a single incident of physical or sexual assault or repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target;
609.605 TRESPASS.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor.
(a) The following terms have the meanings given them for purposes of this section.
(1) "Premises" means real property and any appurtenant building or structure.
(2) "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building used by an individual as a place of residence on either a full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 16.
(3) "Construction site" means the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building or structure.
(4) "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work.
(5) "Posted," as used:
(i) in paragraph (b), clause (4), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building, or in a conspicuous place within the property on which the building is located. The sign must carry a general notice warning against trespass;
(ii) in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration, or repair, or in a conspicuous place within the area being protected. If the area being protected is less than three acres, one additional sign must be conspicuously placed within that area. If the area being protected is three acres but less than ten acres, two additional signs must be conspicuously placed within that area. For each additional full ten acres of area being protected beyond the first ten acres of area, two additional signs must be conspicuously placed within the area being protected. The sign must carry a general notice warning against trespass; and
(iii) in paragraph (b), clause (10), means the placement of signs that:
(A) carry a general notice warning against trespass;
(B) display letters at least two inches high;
(C) state that Minnesota law prohibits trespassing on the property; and
(D) are posted in a conspicuous place and at intervals of 500 feet or less.
(7) "Building" has the meaning given in section 609.581, subdivision 2.
(b) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally:
(4) occupies or enters the dwelling or locked or posted building of another, without claim of right or consent of the owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent, except in an emergency situation;
(9) enters the locked or posted construction site of another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, unless the person is a business licensee;
609.795 LETTER, TELEGRAM, OR PACKAGE; OPENING; HARASSMENT.
Subdivision 1.Misdemeanors.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(3) with the intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress, repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically, of letters, telegrams, or packages.
Attn: Tom Pertler
In addition to state statutes regarding trespass, these rules apply regarding entry for fire marshals/fire chiefs and building inspectors.
Thanks,
Marvin Pirila
299F.08 PREMISES, WHEN ENTERED
Subdivision 1. Immediate entry. In the performance of the duties imposed by the provisions of this chapter, the state fire marshal and subordinates, during and within a reasonable time after a fire has been extinguished, may enter any building or premises where a fire has occurred and other buildings and premises adjoining or near thereto to investigate and gather evidence. In determining whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of this subdivision, the need for investigatory search for the cause of the fire shall be balanced against the privacy rights of the occupant or owner of the building or premises. This does not apply to Jeffrey Juntunen in this incident.
Subd. 2. Administrative search warrant. (a) After the reasonable time prescribed by subdivision 1 for an investigatory search has expired, subsequent entries to the building or premises to investigate and gather evidence may be made only if there is consent from the owner or occupant of the building or premises or pursuant to an administrative search warrant issued by a judge.
(b) In determining whether to issue an administrative search warrant for the purposes of this subdivision, the judge, in conforming the decision to constitutional doctrine governing warrant procedures for administrative searches, shall consider but not be limited to the following factors:
(1) scope of the proposed search;
(2) number of prior entries by fire officials;
(3) time of day when the search is proposed to be made;
(4) lapse of time since the fire;
(5) continued use of the building; and
(6) the owner's or occupant's efforts to secure the building against intruders.
Subd. 3. Criminal search warrant. If during the course of an investigatory search under an administrative search warrant issued in accordance with subdivision 2, the fire marshal or subordinates find probable cause to believe arson has occurred and require further access to the building or premises to gather evidence for possible prosecution, a criminal search warrant must be obtained from a judge.
299F.09 BUILDING ENTERED WITHIN REASONABLE HOURS.
The state fire marshal, chief assistant, deputies, and subordinates, the chief of the fire department of each city where a fire department is established, the mayor of a city where no fire department exists, or the clerk of a town in territory without the limits of a city, at all reasonable hours may enter into all buildings and upon all premises within their jurisdiction for the purpose of examination, after proper consent from the occupant or owner or pursuant to an administrative search warrant. If the examination occurs subsequent to a fire, entry into a building or premise is governed by section 299F.08. History: (5960) 1913 c 564 s 11; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1981 c 106 s 3; 1986 c 444 As discussed no consent was sought.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, ARTICLE I BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 10. Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
1300.0110 DUTIES AND POWERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL, Subp. 7. Right of entry. If it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the code or if the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition contrary to or in violation of the code that makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous, the building official or designee may enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by the code, provided that if the structure or premises is occupied, credentials must be presented to the occupant and entry requested. If the structure or premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry. Mr. Gulland made no such attempts.