Enlighten me on corner hopping

[James Riley]

It is my understanding that neither the state nor the federal government can simply pass a law making corner hopping legal. Such a law would be an unconstitutional "taking" in violation of the Fifth Amendment. There is no "de minimus" argument like "Hey, we're only taking a little bit of his property so F this guy."

If government wants to take someone's property against their will they have to pay for it. There are long-standing, Constitutional procedures where this can be done, legally. How much must be paid is site-specific and fact-specific to each case.

Likewise, I don't think county zoning ordinances can set the height limit. Maybe the FAA. I'm sure there are some cases and regulations out there related to airplanes, national defense, etc. But for for a county to set a height limit, even at each corner, at, say, 1 inch, would constitute a taking. In fact, they already have set-backs which prevent the owner from building against the property line. But guess what? He still owns it and trespassing on it is still trespassing. County Zoning won't over-ride pre-existing rights (grandfathered) unless the exercise thereof presents a threat to the public health.

It may piss a person off that that can't access public land but it should likewise piss them off that someone can trespass on their property. Why should the public get to decide what is too much? A pedestrian wide? A horse wide? Two horses abreast? A car? A semi? Oh hell, let's just put an interstate through there! Guess what? We've done that. A lot. But only after we paid to do so.

So, if you don't like it, rather than be a criminal and sneak around, then do it openly and notoriously and tell the private property owner, the cops and the local DA in advance of when and where you are going to do it so you can go to court and make your case for your right of ingress and egress on and/or over someone else's property. It's like testing Wyoming's non-resident wilderness hunting law: Don't sneak around like a poacher in the night. Man up and test it. That's the American thing to do.

Now, as I've said before, as the owner of public land, I think the government is perfectly within it's rights to prohibit the adjacent private property owner from accessing the land-locked public land. No cows, no hunting, no fishing, no corner crossing, no nothing. If the public can't access it then, well, neither can he/she. If he/she does, prosocute his/her ass under the same laws that the private property owner would use against the corner hopper.

As to Wyoming. Wyoming DOES have trespass laws. In fact, you not only can't walk below the ordinary high water mark on rivers (as you can in Idaho), but you can't even float through some areas (as you can in Colorado). Wyoming is very protective of private property rights. Ironically, they will allow a land-locked private party to "condemn" an easement through another private parcel if there is no other access, they use the least obtrusive route (as determined by a county or state board) and after paying the condemnation rate (determined by the same board after notice and and opportunity to be heard). The decisions are administrative and subject to appeal to a court. It seems the feds could do this if they wanted to.

 

[Goatshoes]

The bill is dead. But regardless it doesn't appear to be targeting corner crossing or hunters in particular.


Section 1. Civil trespass -- penalties. (1) A person who without permission knowingly
13 enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure or enters or remains in or upon the land or premises of
14 another is liable to the owner for a civil penalty of not less than $1,500.

 

[grizzly_]

Gaining an easement to private property, if there is no other access, is typically known as the "Right of Possession" or the "Right of Access". Basically, if you own property then you have the right to access it. This often results in flag-lot scenarios when access must be granted through one parcel to gain access to another (either through deeded property or recorded easement). In Utah, there isn't even a "condemnation rate" since that access is a basic property right and is presumed merely by the fact that the property exists. The easement still results in battles since where/how that access takes place can bring consternation between landowners, but the access itself is a foregone conclusion.

The fact that the "right of access" doesn't apply to the public in regards to public property is likely a symptom of corruption in government and their desire to protect the landowner/donor as opposed to the general public.

As to some of the other points mentioned above (and I say this with the declaration that I'm in no way an attorney)... I highly doubt anybody would be successfully ticketed, or found civilly responsible, for simply waving their hand across the neighbors fence. I imagine a call to the sheriff would result in the sheriff saying, "Did he step foot on your property?" After answering in the negative, I imagine the sheriff would say that no trespassing was committed.

I do believe the same sheriff could issue a citation for corner jumping, but that speaks less to trespassing and more to the morally dishonest illegalization of corner jumping.

 

[schmalts]

In am no lawyer, but I do that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I bring this up for other reasons than corner jumping. Meaning this, the landowner needs to prove you were on his land, and didn't jump the corner in the proper place. This means is if he has no survey data, or footprints to show where you crossed it makes it hard for him in a court of law as it is just his word against yours. I don't know about you guys, but I know Randy and myself have been accused of being on private land that was in fact public. A lot of ranchers have no clue where the true property lines lie VS where he has a fence. A fence is not a property line nor takes place of a true survey line. I have shown on more than one occasion my GPS to a landowner who claimed I was on his land to show him where the property lines really lie compared to a fence. Another thing to remember is in many states the only person that can call the police for trespassing is the property owner. This means a ranch hand, outfitter, or the likes cannot call the police and press charges for the actual land owner. The land owner can be contacted and call himself. I study maps and many times I hunt places by getting behind private land by following my GPS and many times doing so I crossed fences marked with trespass signs. I ignore them if my GPS shows the sign is placed on public land blocking public land. I have also seen public land posted just to deter the uninformed hunter.

 

[Goatshoes]

It is my understanding that neither the state nor the federal government can simply pass a law making corner hopping legal. Such a law would be an unconstitutional "taking" in violation of the Fifth Amendment. There is no "de minimus" argument like "Hey, we're only taking a little bit of his property so F this guy."

If government wants to take someone's property against their will they have to pay for it. There are long-standing, Constitutional procedures where this can be done, legally. How much must be paid is site-specific and fact-specific to each case.

Likewise, I don't think county zoning ordinances can set the height limit. Maybe the FAA. I'm sure there are some cases and regulations out there related to airplanes, national defense, etc. But for for a county to set a height limit, even at each corner, at, say, 1 inch, would constitute a taking. In fact, they already have set-backs which prevent the owner from building against the property line. But guess what? He still owns it and trespassing on it is still trespassing. County Zoning won't over-ride pre-existing rights (grandfathered) unless the exercise thereof presents a threat to the public health.

It may piss a person off that that can't access public land but it should likewise piss them off that someone can trespass on their property. Why should the public get to decide what is too much? A pedestrian wide? A horse wide? Two horses abreast? A car? A semi? Oh hell, let's just put an interstate through there! Guess what? We've done that. A lot. But only after we paid to do so.

So, if you don't like it, rather than be a criminal and sneak around, then do it openly and notoriously and tell the private property owner, the cops and the local DA in advance of when and where you are going to do it so you can go to court and make your case for your right of ingress and egress on and/or over someone else's property. It's like testing Wyoming's non-resident wilderness hunting law: Don't sneak around like a poacher in the night. Man up and test it. That's the American thing to do.

Now, as I've said before, as the owner of public land, I think the government is perfectly within it's rights to prohibit the adjacent private property owner from accessing the land-locked public land. No cows, no hunting, no fishing, no corner crossing, no nothing. If the public can't access it then, well, neither can he/she. If he/she does, prosocute his/her ass under the same laws that the private property owner would use against the corner hopper.

As to Wyoming. Wyoming DOES have trespass laws. In fact, you not only can't walk below the ordinary high water mark on rivers (as you can in Idaho), but you can't even float through some areas (as you can in Colorado). Wyoming is very protective of private property rights. Ironically, they will allow a land-locked private party to "condemn" an easement through another private parcel if there is no other access, they use the least obtrusive route (as determined by a county or state board) and after paying the condemnation rate (determined by the same board after notice and and opportunity to be heard). The decisions are administrative and subject to appeal to a court. It seems the feds could do this if they wanted to.

Ia agree with everything above except this...

I think the government is perfectly within it's rights to prohibit the adjacent private property owner from accessing the land-locked public land. No cows, no hunting, no fishing, no corner crossing, no nothing.

Can you elaborate on this? What would the basis be for denying him the right to that public land? The land owner isn't denying anybody access to the public land, he is merely protecting his own property rights. Would this only apply to landowners who own multiple properties in a checker board fashion or all land owners whose parcels are a component in land locking a parcel?

 

[James Riley]

Gaining an easement to private property, if there is no other access, is typically known as the "Right of Possession" or the "Right of Access". Basically, if you own property then you have the right to access it. This often results in flag-lot scenarios when access must be granted through one parcel to gain access to another (either through deeded property or recorded easement). In Utah, there isn't even a "condemnation rate" since that access is a basic property right and is presumed merely by the fact that the property exists. The easement still results in battles since where/how that access takes place can bring consternation between landowners, but the access itself is a foregone conclusion.

The fact that the "right of access" doesn't apply to the public in regards to public property is likely a symptom of corruption in government and their desire to protect the landowner/donor as opposed to the general public.

As to some of the other points mentioned above (and I say this with the declaration that I'm in no way an attorney)... I highly doubt anybody would be successfully ticketed, or found civilly responsible, for simply waving their hand across the neighbors fence. I imagine a call to the sheriff would result in the sheriff saying, "Did he step foot on your property?" After answering in the negative, I imagine the sheriff would say that no trespassing was committed.

I do believe the same sheriff could issue a citation for corner jumping, but that speaks less to trespassing and more to the morally dishonest illegalization of corner jumping.

After reading your post, Wyoming may be like Utah, in that you don't have to pay. I thought you did but I'm not sure. A friend of mine, an attorney up there, went through that whole mess and it was a mess. But he got his road. Not sure if he had to pay for it (other than the proceedings).

I don't think it's morally dishonest to deem corner jumping illegal. I do think it is morally dishonest to refrain from enforcing the law, especially if you have sufficient evidence of violation.

 

[James Riley]

In am no lawyer, but I do that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I bring this up for other reasons than corner jumping. Meaning this, the landowner needs to prove you were on his land, and didn't jump the corner in the proper place. This means is if he has no survey data, or footprints to show where you crossed it makes it hard for him in a court of law as it is just his word against yours. I don't know about you guys, but I know Randy and myself have been accused of being on private land that was in fact public. A lot of ranchers have no clue where the true property lines lie VS where he has a fence. A fence is not a property line nor takes place of a true survey line. I have shown on more than one occasion my GPS to a landowner who claimed I was on his land to show him where the property lines really lie compared to a fence. Another thing to remember is in many states the only person that can call the police for trespassing is the property owner. This means a ranch hand, outfitter, or the likes cannot call the police and press charges for the actual land owner. The land owner can be contacted and call himself. I study maps and many times I hunt places by getting behind private land by following my GPS and many times doing so I crossed fences marked with trespass signs. I ignore them if my GPS shows the sign is placed on public land blocking public land. I have also seen public land posted just to deter the uninformed hunter.

I agree about the burden of proof for criminal trespass, however, in some jurisdictions the burden is upon the public to know where the boundaries are. Further, since you can't legally hop the corner *even if* you know exactly where it is, then you obviously can't hop where there is no corner; you would be on private property if you missed the corner. Thus, if the evidence shows you got from public to public in the general area of the corner, on land-locked public land where there is no other way, and you didn't fly in, then you have, prima facie, trespassed.

 

[James Riley]

Ia agree with everything above except this...

Can you elaborate on this? What would the basis be for denying him the right to that public land? The land owner isn't denying anybody access to the public land, he is merely protecting his own property rights. Would this only apply to landowners who own multiple properties in a checker board fashion or all land owners whose parcels are a component in land locking a parcel?

Good question. I will start with the second question and say it would apply anywhere there is land-locked public land. As to the first question, the basis would be a policy reason. I'd articulate it thus: "Whereas the public has no practical legal access to certain tracts of public land in the United States, such lands shall be administratively set aside as 'No Public Access Lands'. The public shall not be allowed to enter such lands until such time as they have practical legal access to do so. In the interim, No Public Access Lands shall be utilized for scientific study and a baseline for research and comparison with other Public Lands."

 

[grizzly_]

I don't think it's morally dishonest to deem corner jumping illegal. I do think it is morally dishonest to refrain from enforcing the law, especially if you have sufficient evidence of violation.

I think it is morally dishonest for a politician, who has a duty to work in the best interest of his constituents, to ignore those constituent's right to access public property and instead work to protect that public property for the personal use of a single person; one that often doesn't even live in that district and is therefore not even a constituent of that elected official. To me, that is morally dishonest.

I agree about the burden of proof for criminal trespass, however, in some jurisdictions the burden is upon the public to know where the boundaries are. Further, since you can't legally hop the corner *even if* you know exactly where it is, then you obviously can't hop where there is no corner; you would be on private property if you missed the corner. Thus, if the evidence shows you got from public to public in the general area of the corner, on land-locked public land where there is no other way, and you didn't fly in, then you have, prima facie, trespassed.

But the landowner must prove you crossed his specific land. If you were to be found on a landlocked piece of public property, which landowner could claim damages? As a hunter, just take the 5th Amendment and refuse to disclose at what point you accessed. There could easily be many potential entry points owned by multiple landowners and no landowner could prove you ever stepped foot on his specific property.

All the adjacent landowners can't all line up and sue together as that clearly meets the threshold of reasonable doubt. The court would likely have have to be convinced of which corner you crossed to identify the harmed individual. And then that individual must prove damages.

That's a pretty high bar to clear.

 

[MTGomer]

In am no lawyer, but I do that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I bring this up for other reasons than corner jumping. Meaning this, the landowner needs to prove you were on his land, and didn't jump the corner in the proper place. This means is if he has no survey data, or footprints to show where you crossed it makes it hard for him in a court of law as it is just his word against yours. I don't know about you guys, but I know Randy and myself have been accused of being on private land that was in fact public. A lot of ranchers have no clue where the true property lines lie VS where he has a fence. A fence is not a property line nor takes place of a true survey line. I have shown on more than one occasion my GPS to a landowner who claimed I was on his land to show him where the property lines really lie compared to a fence. Another thing to remember is in many states the only person that can call the police for trespassing is the property owner. This means a ranch hand, outfitter, or the likes cannot call the police and press charges for the actual land owner. The land owner can be contacted and call himself. I study maps and many times I hunt places by getting behind private land by following my GPS and many times doing so I crossed fences marked with trespass signs. I ignore them if my GPS shows the sign is placed on public land blocking public land. I have also seen public land posted just to deter the uninformed hunter.

Keep in mind that the lines on your handheld GPS are GIS grade linework derived from the GCDB. They may be correct within the tolerances of your device but they may be off by hundreds and hundreds of feet.

The GCDB is basically a least-squares adjustment of a township projected and adjusted from a handful of found monuments.

 

[Goatshoes]

Good question. I will start with the second question and say it would apply anywhere there is land-locked public land. As to the first question, the basis would be a policy reason. I'd articulate it thus: "Whereas the public has no practical legal access to certain tracts of public land in the United States, such lands shall be administratively set aside as 'No Public Access Lands'. The public shall not be allowed to enter such lands until such time as they have practical legal access to do so. In the interim, No Public Access Lands shall be utilized for scientific study and a baseline for research and comparison with other Public Lands."

The problem with this is that the adjacent land owner is part of the public and he DOES have practical legal access. And since the term "morally dishonest" has been introduced into this thread, I think to claim that "No Public Access Lands shall be utilized for scientific study" is a morally dishonest sham unless scientific studies are planned and funded.

 

[James Riley]

I think it is morally dishonest for a politician, who has a duty to work in the best interest of his constituents, to ignore those constituent's right to access public property and instead work to protect that public property for the personal use of a single person; one that often doesn't even live in that district and is therefore not even a constituent of that elected official. To me, that is morally dishonest.

I agree 100%. But that duty doesn't include shitting on the Constitutional Rights of a minority in the interests of the majority. It's simple: Pay.

But the landowner must prove you crossed his specific land. If you were to be found on a landlocked piece of public property, which landowner could claim damages? As a hunter, just take the 5th Amendment and refuse to disclose at what point you accessed. There could easily be many potential entry points owned by multiple landowners and no landowner could prove you ever stepped foot on his specific property.

All the adjacent landowners can't all line up and sue together as that clearly meets the threshold of reasonable doubt. The court would likely have have to be convinced of which corner you crossed to identify the harmed individual. And then that individual must prove damages.

That's a pretty high bar to clear.

1. First of all, we are talking about evidence absent a clear understanding of boundary location. The "prima facie" argument comes in when it is impossible for you to be there without having trespassed, *even if* you knew exactly where the corner was. If you knew exactly where it was and could not cross it legally, then you obviously could not have crossed it legally if you were off by any given distance in any direction. Proving you were there and had not flown in is proof enough.

2. Second, you are assuming there are different private property owners and not just one. I'll play. First, if I have evidence of where you crossed, then your argument fails. If I don't, there is nothing prohibiting testimony of all land owners (under subpoena or otherwise) that permission was not granted. If one of them *did* grant permission then you are good to go. If none of them did, then you are back to paragraph number one, above. Lining up and suing together does *not* address any thresholds, of reasonable doubt or otherwise.

3. You reference reasonable doubt, which is a criminal standard, but reference damages, which is a civil issue (preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt). So I can't tell what you are talking about. But let's assume both. Yes, the prosecution/plaintiff has the burden of proof but as I said above, that can be shown by your mere presence on a place you could not legally get to without a helicopter. Or, we could have video, etc. As to damages, once culpability is shown, the damages could be zero (unless the state has provided for them; reference the proposal above about $1,5k) but your ass has still been found liable and you've paid how much in time and/or money and inconvenience and lost your elk? It's punitive enough to protect private property rights.

 

[James Riley]

The problem with this is that the adjacent land owner is part of the public and he DOES have practical legal access. And since the term "morally dishonest" has been introduced into this thread, I think to claim that "No Public Access Lands shall be utilized for scientific study" is a morally dishonest sham unless scientific studies are planned and funded.

Again, to the second point first: Plan those scientific studies and fund them.

As to the first, he does *not* have practical legal access because they are No Public Access Lands.

 

[Sytes]

This is always an interesting topic that we find it more a "preaching to the choir" type vent / rant about what should be, what morality opines within us however what should be - is not. On the political spectrum, I am neither a jackass nor a dumbo though find it very disappointing when PL/PW pushed for modification of the corner crossing topic in 2013, it became toxic partisan b.s. the state Republicans ALL voted against it, to include co-sponsor of the darn bill. Leaves a continued distaste for that party.

On a non political rant... Anyone know how to identify if a landowner is receiving tax credit(s) for enabling recreationists to step from one state parcel of public land to another without disturbing a single blade of private property weeds? I would like to know without dealing with landowners that get the people's $ credit though say "no" when asked via phone or in person.

 

[Goatshoes]

Again, to the second point first: Plan those scientific studies and fund them.

As to the first, he does *not* have practical legal access because they are No Public Access Lands.

Haha.. Well I have to hand it to you. You're determined; but it does stink of being punitive and the "scientific studies" could be adequately conducted on a small sample of parcels regardless of the study and more budget friendly but I am sure you can conjure up something both more legitimate and budget conscious.

I honestly think that in the majority of cases an individual who is willing to put forth some decency and effort can acquire access from a large number of landowners. Laws are a poor substitute for acting in good faith.

 

[James Riley]

Haha.. Well I have to hand it to you. You're determined; but it does stink of being punitive and the "scientific studies" could be adequately conducted on a small sample of parcels regardless of the study and more budget friendly but I am sure you can conjure up something both more legitimate and budget conscious.

I honestly think that in the majority of cases an individual who is willing to put forth some decency and effort can acquire access from a large number of landowners. Laws are a poor substitute for acting in good faith.

I remember riding the range with a BLM cowboy once who was fixing fence on "exclosures" designed to study range land without impacts from cattle. They were only about five or ten acres and usually crossed a watershed. I asked him why the land inside the exclosures was in worse condition than the land outside. He told me the ranchers used the exclosures to hold cattle during round up. Anyway, I think square miles of land with no public on it (save the neighboring private property owner) is the perfect place to study a case of *no* people. After all, he has no rights to it (only privilege) and that can be revoked for being an asshole with cattle; why not for being an assholes in general?

Don't get me wrong, I will defend to the death his right to be an asshole. In fact, not wanting assholes trespassing on or over your property doesn't make you an asshole. Which brings us to your final point: If there were no assholes, then we probably would not even have this problem. Laws are indeed a poor substitute for good faith. But they are designed for assholes, not good faith.

 

[Sytes]

Laws are indeed a poor substitute for good faith. But they are designed for assholes, not good faith.

Not discounting the discussion between the two of you though...
This quote is signature worthy. Well stated!

 

[grizzly_]

Good discourse James.

For discussion's sake, lets focus on a civil claim as criminal charges against corner jumping are few and far between as charges have typically been dropped (likely because few DA's want to lose and set a precedent). This leaves all of us in a legal limbo wondering if corner jumping is actually illegal.

You may, or may not, have been involved in civil litigation in the past, I don't know. I have had the misfortune of having been involved in civil litigation with my business, which sadly is just a fact of owning a business that deals in hundreds of clients/customers and tens of millions of dollars every year. I'll apply my experiences so far (of which we have been 100% successful :knock on wood... it is inconceivable to me that if there were a piece of ground in Northern Utah, where I live, that was surrounded by six different owners, for example, with multiple potential corner jumping entry points; that merely being on the public land could result in a finding of civil liability. It is not up to a respondent (defendant) to prove a negative regarding how they could have legally gotten there. It is up to the specific complainant to prove where you crossed their specific property and how they were harmed and could be made whole with monetary award.

Imagine Farmer John having a photograph of you hunting on public land and suing for trespassing. All you'd have to do is ask for proof that you crossed his land and posture the theory that you could have crossed Farmer Dan's land instead, or Farmer Hank's land. Farmer John could not be awarded damages when it is entirely possible, even plausible, that you were never near his land/boundary.

Often in responding to a lawsuit, an attorney will offer many different defense options, none of which can be tied directly to the other, nor be used as an admission of wrongdoing, but all of which raise the possibility of innocence in this specific legal action. The civil threshold of "preponderance of evidence" could never be met in this case. If the public land happened to be surrounded by a single landowner, or a designated consortium of landowners, their case would be easier to prove since they would exist as a single complainant (plaintiff), but with different landowners and the absence of a preexisting consortium it would be hard to prove where you even accessed the land and then even harder to prove that harm was done and damages are owed.

I am not convinced that merely being on public land would be accepted as prime facie ('at face value' or 'at first look') evidence of trespassing since merely existing on public land is not in-and-of-itself a crime. For the record, most courts require prime facie evidence for a civil case to even be considered. PF evidence is not a golden ticket, in fact it is more akin to the bottom threshold for a lawsuit to continue without a directive verdict in favor of the defendant or outright dismissal prior to the defendant even having to submit rebuttal evidence. An example would be an employee suing her boss by saying that because the management was entirely male, that PF evidence existed that the company was discriminatory against women. In fact, the employee would have to submit specific evidence showing she was harmed due to her gender and not her lack of qualifications, demeanor, or work habits. She has the burden of proof and the defendant (respondent) can sit quietly by and not even respond during this early stage. Should PF not be met, the lawsuit will likely be dismissed or a directive verdict will be found in favor of the defendant. Obviously this is a much harder threshold for the plaintiff to meet, but one that must be met by the specific landowner claiming trespassing.

One more thing, a reasonably accurate GPS could actually be a defendant's best friend. In the absence of other evidence, it is possible that while the landowner uses your GPS footprints as evidence of trespassing while corner jumping, a good attorney would use the inaccuracy (often +/- 10') to be the actual doubt used against the landowner in showing it is possible that you were not corner jumping over his property at all. For instance, you could've crossed entirely on the neighboring property and avoided the plaintiffs property altogether. And then the attorneys could bring in to the discussion what is known in Utah as "fence law" that says if two landowners mutually agree over a period of years that a fence is the property boundary that it actually becomes the legal property boundary. I am not sure if "fence law" exists in other states, but I have seen it used in my own office on multiple occasions regarding farm ground and pasture.

I'm not saying corner jumping is legal and I'm not willing to be the test case to find out. But I am proposing the idea that things aren't as clear-cut as they seem on the surface. Which is of course, why we are where we are.

(Again, I am not an attorney, but I have had my fair share of legal rodeos and if I were sued this is the argument I would expect my attorneys to take while fighting it.)

 

[RobG]

Interesting discussion of almost no practical use, so count me in. Suppose there is a corner crossing where landowner "L" owns the property on the left, and landowner "R" owns the property on the right. If I'm found on the other side it is clear I had to trespass on at least one of the properties. However, you can easily cross in a way that you only infringe on one of them. Now if both landowners are willing to bring it to trial, but I choose not to disclose which side I chose, can a judgement ($0 or otherwise) be brought against me?

 

[James Riley]

Good discourse James.

For discussion's sake, lets focus on a civil claim as criminal charges against corner jumping are few and far between as charges have typically been dropped (likely because few DA's want to lose and set a precedent). This leaves all of us in a legal limbo wondering if corner jumping is actually illegal.

You may, or may not, have been involved in civil litigation in the past, I don't know. I have had the misfortune of having been involved in civil litigation with my business, which sadly is just a fact of owning a business that deals in hundreds of clients/customers and tens of millions of dollars every year. I'll apply my experiences so far (of which we have been 100% successful :knock on wood... it is inconceivable to me that if there were a piece of ground in Northern Utah, where I live, that was surrounded by six different owners, for example, with multiple potential corner jumping entry points; that merely being on the public land could result in a finding of civil liability. It is not up to a respondent (defendant) to prove a negative regarding how they could have legally gotten there. It is up to the specific complainant to prove where you crossed their specific property and how they were harmed and could be made whole with monetary award.

Imagine Farmer John having a photograph of you hunting on public land and suing for trespassing. All you'd have to do is ask for proof that you crossed his land and posture the theory that you could have crossed Farmer Dan's land instead, or Farmer Hank's land. Farmer John could not be awarded damages when it is entirely possible, even plausible, that you were never near his land/boundary.

Often in responding to a lawsuit, an attorney will offer many different defense options, none of which can be tied directly to the other, nor be used as an admission of wrongdoing, but all of which raise the possibility of innocence in this specific legal action. The civil threshold of "preponderance of evidence" could never be met in this case. If the public land happened to be surrounded by a single landowner, or a designated consortium of landowners, their case would be easier to prove since they would exist as a single complainant (plaintiff), but with different landowners and the absence of a preexisting consortium it would be hard to prove where you even accessed the land and then even harder to prove that harm was done and damages are owed.

I am not convinced that merely being on public land would be accepted as prime facie ('at face value' or 'at first look') evidence of trespassing since merely existing on public land is not in-and-of-itself a crime. For the record, most courts require prime facie evidence for a civil case to even be considered. PF evidence is not a golden ticket, in fact it is more akin to the bottom threshold for a lawsuit to continue without a directive verdict in favor of the defendant or outright dismissal prior to the defendant even having to submit rebuttal evidence. An example would be an employee suing her boss by saying that because the management was entirely male, that PF evidence existed that the company was discriminatory against women. In fact, the employee would have to submit specific evidence showing she was harmed due to her gender and not her lack of qualifications, demeanor, or work habits. She has the burden of proof and the defendant (respondent) can sit quietly by and not even respond during this early stage. Should PF not be met, the lawsuit will likely be dismissed or a directive verdict will be found in favor of the defendant. Obviously this is a much harder threshold for the plaintiff to meet, but one that must be met by the specific landowner claiming trespassing.

One more thing, a reasonably accurate GPS could actually be a defendant's best friend. In the absence of other evidence, it is possible that while the landowner uses your GPS footprints as evidence of trespassing while corner jumping, a good attorney would use the inaccuracy (often +/- 10') to be the actual doubt used against the landowner in showing it is possible that you were not corner jumping over his property at all. For instance, you could've crossed entirely on the neighboring property and avoided the plaintiffs property altogether. And then the attorneys could bring in to the discussion what is known in Utah as "fence law" that says if two landowners mutually agree over a period of years that a fence is the property boundary that it actually becomes the legal property boundary. I am not sure if "fence law" exists in other states, but I have seen it used in my own office on multiple occasions regarding farm ground and pasture.

I'm not saying corner jumping is legal and I'm not willing to be the test case to find out. But I am proposing the idea that things aren't as clear-cut as they seem on the surface. Which is of course, why we are where we are.

(Again, I am not an attorney, but I have had my fair share of legal rodeos and if I were sued this is the argument I would expect my attorneys to take while fighting it.)

I've been in a few rodeos myself. Civil and criminal. In my experience, the majority of these cases involve single private land owners, not six. But I agreed to play. As already explained, the plaintiff does have the burden of proof. However, that burden can be met, shifting the burden to the defendant. If a plaintiff calls all adjacent landowners who testify that permission was not given, and if the helicopter defense is not possible, not raised or if it's defeated, then a prima facie case of trespass has been made. Where that trespass occurred is the next question.

If landowner X is the plaintiff and has shown trespass and all the other land owners are, as you say "lined up" then the burden shifts to you to show how you arrived on public land without trespassing. By the time we get to the damages phase or which plaintiff is entitled to them, if any, you've already lost for the reasons stated in my post above. Punitive indeed. All those attorneys you expect to take your argument?

This could be a bench trial or a jury trial but the finder of fact is going to be raising an eyebrow at the defendant, not the plaintiff. Your analogy is inadequate. It would be more accurate if the plaintiff showed she had been unconscious and raped at work with three guys in the room. The burden shifts to the business at that point to show the three guys were not employed there and security was adequate to prevent the rape. Hmmm.

As to the GPS defense, I've already defeated that in my prior post. These isolate parcels are usually sections (a square mile) and GPS is not off by a mile. Besides, as stated before, if you knew the precise location of the line and jumped over it precisely, you'd still be trespassing. How much more so if you crossed 100 yards left or right? You see, it becomes irrelevant at that point the exact location of trespass. The fact is, you had to have trespassed. Unless you can make the quantum physics argument laid out earlier in this thread.