 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
“There were no signs clearly indicating the ‘at will’ capacity to eject -- for any reason -- persons who entered this private property” From a story in The Salt Lake Tribune July 2009 Prosecutors won't pursue a case against two men accused of trespassing on LDS Church property earlier this month. An LDS Church security guard detained Derek Jones and Matt Aune, a gay couple, on Salt Lake City's Main Street Plaza on July 9 after observing the pair "kissing and hugging," according to a police report. The incident led to two kiss-in protests against the church in Salt Lake City and one in San Diego. Salt Lake City Prosecutor Sim Gill said the trespassing case against Jones and Aune has been dropped. Gill said there “continues to be a mistaken belief by many visitors that there is a public right of way.” “There is conflicting notice to those who walk onto and through this corridor that they do so with permission and exclusive pleasure of the property owner,” Gill said. “There is no personal right to be there and no necessity for the property owner to explain if and why the property owner wishes to eject a visitor. “Simply stated, the property owner does not have to give a reason. However, once a visitor is allowed to come upon or is invited upon the property, the property owner must provide some notice of the conditions under which the visitor received permission to enter the property subjecting the visitor to the discretion of the property owner.” Gill said Jones and Aune weren’t intending to commit criminal trespassing because they perceived the walkway was open to the public. In addition, Gill said, “there is a reasonable basis to believe the alleged trespassers did not think the LDS staff who confronted them could legally eject them from the property. Under this scenario, the alleged violators wanted law enforcement to be called because they believed they had a right to be there. “There were no signs clearly indicating the ‘at will’ capacity to eject -- for any reason -- persons who entered this private property. Under this statute when the property is ‘open to the public’ Utah law provides that even if there is a violation of the statute, there is still the affirmative defense for the defendant that such conduct did not ‘substantially interfere’ with the owner's use of the property.”
|
www.affirmation.org