LAW FOR BACKPACKERS 101

The file that is "attached" here is the final version of my full Law for Backpackers 101 article, that began as a series of summarizations of topics with a lot of message debate in the "Straight Forward" Forum. It's in Adobe PDF format, which is easy to open, but if you can't, it is probably because you don't have Adobe "Reader." If that's the case, it's available on the Internet for free at Adobe.com.

If anyone has suggestions, I welcome them, and comments about anything in here - pro or con - are welcome.

I'd also appreciate you voting in the Poll above. It helps me with considering revisions.

I hope this is useful to you. Thanks for letting me try.

The Weasel

Has this post/poll benn subbed before?

I voted neutral because I'm pretty clear about the things that I do. Some are within the law and some are not. I attempt to stay away from the law as much as possible. Just keep my head down and keep hiking.

Kudos to The Weasel for the effort though.:)

This is the same poll as was used when the article was submitted as a draft. Votes are new.

Bravo to Bravo for 'staying within the law' but you can't stay away from it. Many of the topics have to do with things other than criminal law, such as insurance and powers of attorney (new). I hope you read those, too, and find some value. (Don't worry about the poll vote if you change your mind!!!)

The Weasel

Has this post/poll benn subbed before?One difference: this is now a public poll. You get to see how everyone voted, who didn't like it and who did. Kind of like a TV camera in the jury room.

Well, no one has ever held back from telling me when they didn't agree or like what I'd done before and saying so in public!:sun

Well, no one has ever held back from telling me when they didn't agree or like what I'd done before and saying so in public!:sunTrue enough. Hope you get better answers this time around. If at first you don't succeed, ...

My only comment is that the article is too long. It reads like a legal document, fine for lawyers. Articles for backpackers are most useful (in my opinion) are more useful if written with a layman in mind. Forget the obscure points. No one is going to remember all that junk you have in there. The best people can do if they get into trouble is to go back and read what they should have done, because they ain't gonna remember it after they read it. Assuming they finish reading without their eyes glazing over.

Your article is a monumental effort, that is for sure. Unfortunately, a monumental effort does not necessarily equate to effective or useful, as the French found out with the Maginot Line.

Revising an article is tough. I know. Tougher than the original writing. It is very hard to get a focused article.

For grins and giggles, try condensing your article to three pages. Keep your old one, just do this as an experiment to see what you would keep if you only had three pages. You will have to leave out everything that isn't absolutely essential, and you may not like the final result, but I'll bet it is a superior product, and that you will have learned a bit in the process about what is most important to say on the subject. Then you can give a one-hour talk on the subject at the gathering or ATC biennial.

Great job Weasel! I think the article is very informative. Sure, most people won't remember everything said, but I'll bet certain points will definitely stick with them.

Frosty --

There's an old saying, "Might as well be damned for a dollar as for a dime." Yeah, I know it's long. But most of the points are relatively short, and the best suggestion was that I put a table of contents in (which I did). That means if someone doesn't care about "Public Nudity and Sex" (chuckle), they don't have to read it. And the ones that are long essentially incorporate questions and information from others. So you can blame other people for it being too long!!!! :-?

I'll probably revised it again in a few weeks, but if it goes short, I'll just get complaints about what I left out. So you're right, but I may not change it.

As for the Maginot line, it was never successfully breached, and did the job it was intended to do. The French problem was that it wasn't extended far enough to prevent flank attacks. But some parts of the Maginot Line held out for weeks, and were never overcome. I should be so lucky.

The Weasel

As for the Maginot line, it was never successfully breached, and did the job it was intended to do.That's like using an open tarp in Maine in July for mosquito protection and saying no mosquitos got through the tarp so the tarp did the job it was intended to do.

Your Maginot Line was as effective in keeping Germans out or France as an open tarp would keep mosquitos off your body.

Ah, see, you're tricked me again into debating with a professional word twister. Maginot Line did the job it was intended to do. Ha ha. Yeah, great for debating the meaning of words instead of their context, and shooting a discussion away from its original focus.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Consider me shamed, and you on ignore.

Frosty:

First of all, if you want to debate military strategy, this thread isn't the place for it. You raised the point, but if you want to keep it up, that's hijacking. Please don't. Start a new thread.

Secondly, I don't appreciate being accused by you -again - of "playing with words." I did nothing here or elsewhere that is a "shame on you." If you want to engage in a flame war, please go elsewhere. I'm tired of people thinking they can gratuitiously slam me; it's old, and been done enough by now.

Those - including you - who have comments (whether favorable or not) about the topic/article, or questions/answers, are welcome to post them.

The Weasel

Way too many words for a subject that will (or ever has) actually impact(ed) few (if any) AT hikers.
Socks are a much more important topic.

Those who don't find if of value may ignore it with no hard feelings from me. At their peril, of course.

As for socks, I look forward to your article on that. When will we see it?

The Weasel

heck rusty bolts..amerikans vote all the time without reading or understanding what/who theys is a votin four .... :D

i mean take a look around...

Well, I'm not in the same league as W, stevo!

The Weasel

heck rusty bolts..amerikans vote all the time without reading or understanding what/who theys is a votin four .... :D

That's true even in this thread.

When The Weasel voted that his own article was "very useful to (him) as a backpacker", my guess is that he really didn't understand the question. Perhaps he meant that the knowledge that went into writing the article was very useful to him.

I really don't believe The Weasel looks at his own article as an important memory or reference tool, given his experience and education.

But if so, that's OK. Eating our of aluminum pots for many decades could take its toll on anyone of us. Now off to work, if I could only find where I left my keys...

Actually, Rick, I probably learned more than most people, since before I responded to most questions I checked the details in order to make sure I was right and to fill in things that made information more clear and, I hope, useful. And I don't remember everything, either (is entry into the US from Canada without a visa good for 90 days or 180? hafta look), probably from all those Scout aluminum pots I've used. That's really what being a lawyer is about: Knowing where to look for information, and understanding how it will be perceived in a court of law (hopefully to keep clients OUT of court by giving good advice!). There is so much "law" and so much changes literally daily that no one can know all of it, even in a specialty area, and even then the details get 'misremembered'.

So when someone asks me one of these questions, I have a copy of what I wrote. It helps me remember what I said, and what I think the law provides. It's useful to me, and I'm glad - for my own purposes - that I went through the exercise.

And I continue to hope that it helps others. That's the real reason I did it.

The Weasel

Actually, Rick, I probably learned more than most people, since before I responded to most questions I checked the details in order to make sure I was right and to fill in things that made information more clear and, I hope, useful. ...

Likewise, I find that I learn more than my readers/listeners, when I prepare an article, a class, or a seminar speech. It's often said that the teacher learns more than the students.

I'm also surprised and disappointed when people use words imprecisely and then complain that lawyers "twist words" when the lawyers use words with precision. The fact is, it is the fuzzy thinkers who are twisting the words. People who use words with precision are not twisting them, but are often untwisting fuzzy usage, whether they be lawyers or anyone exercising clarity and discipline of thought.

I am going to pm you a couple of comments and items of advice for your consideration. GOOD article. Perhaps the ATC should pick up on it.

Rain:sunMan

.

I found it to be way too long. 30 pages is way beyond overkill. It would be much more useful if it was formatted into bullet points. Just my $.02

TX, I appreciate your comment, and understand it. And if I spent another 10-20 hours on this (I estimate that I've probably spent well in excess of 100 hours in writing the main points, reading comments that were helpful, and researching it), I might shorten it somewhat.

But to those who want three pages or bullet points, I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. Most of these sections were much shorter when posted in the active thread, and generated (helpfully) a lot of questions that need answers. Saying, " + Don't consent to any LEO search" without describing how "searches" differ from "pat downs", what "consent" is, and, for that matter even who may or may not be a Law Enforcement Officer just won't work.

Some things in this life don't condense to 3 pages and a 5 minute Power Point presentation. Yeah, you could condense Bubba Ho-Tep to 5 minutes ("Elvis and JFK kill monster. Bang.") or the Bible to 3 pages ("God does strange things. Do good things. Israel is old.") but that doens't mean that you understand them. My writing isn't up there with the Bible, or maybe even good enough for Bruce Campbell. But this is a topic that I think has more to it than bullet points.

Sorry. Still hope it has use for you.

The Weasel

I've read through page 15 and have found the article a useful summary of the law. I wish it was a bit shorter, but I understand why that can't happen without misleading some hikers.

I'll read the rest in a day or two. Tonight I have to get ready to attend a town land trust meeting.

I continue to believe that though the words may not be as precise as lawyers might wish, the Baxter Park TRustees, who adopted the language, did so because they wanted to make drinking alcoholic beverages at campsites and leantos legal. The rules used to specifically prohibit the consumption of alcohol.

I vaguely remember the discussion many, many years ago. The argument as I remember dealt with fairness. People who rented camps and log cabins in the park were considered able to drink legally. And park trustees and advisory committee members, who periodically stayed at "VIP" housing in the park also indulged, which I know from personal observation while covering park meetings as a newspaper reporter. Thus, the argument went, it seemed only fair that people using the shelters and tents should have the same right.

However, no one should put complete faith in my sometimes less than precise memory in this matter -- at least until after I go to the park again and ask the park administrative staff, directly.

Weary

Weary:

Here's the rub: It's a principle of law that if a statute is ambiguous, a court may attempt (using some very specific rules) to determine what the intent of the legislature was in adopting it. But when it's not ambiguous, and is very clear, then a court is not free to say, "this is absurd" even if it is all-but-certain that the legislature never meant that result.

Here's a case that proves that point (I'm from Michigan, and a Democrat, but I take no joy in the perversity of this case, although it is also pretty funny, in its own way): Michigan law prohibits adultery, and makes it technically a relatively low level crime. No one is prosecuted for this. Michigan law also says that any other felony that happens at the same time as any unlawful sexual penetration occurs means that adultery becomes Criminal Sexual Conduct 1, a felony punishable by life in prison.

The Michigan Court of Appeals said, front up, that it couldn't believe the legislature meant that, but had to go with the clear words of the statute. What made it interesting is that the Michigan Attorney General's office, which was raising this point, didn't realize that, when it won, it also meant that the Attorney General, who had admitted a few years ago to cheating on his wife, was now capable of being indicted for CSC 1 (also known as first degree rape). http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

So if Maine Law says, "No drinking," period, well, "No means No." Even if not prosecuted in the past, well....you pays your money, you takes your chances.

The Weasel

My point is that Baxter is a pretty small, close knit community. I haven't researched their payroll, but I tend to see the same rangers year after year. I'm sure there are well under 100 employees -- probably only two or three dozen, all of whom undergo training periodically.

If the three trustees in charge -- one of whom is always the attorney general of the state -- changed the regulations to allow alcoholic beverages at campsites, no one is going to be arrested for doing so, regardless of the deficiencies of the language.

And if an over zealous, or ignorant ranger, somehow, arrests someone in violation of the intent, it is unlikely to be prosecuted.

The former park director worked there for 40 years. His replacement has worked there for 25 years. There is an institutional memory of how things are supposed to work in Baxter that perhaps overrides quirks in the language of the rules.

I'm now so far out on a limb in this discussion that I'll have to check for sure what the rangers think the regulations require. I know for a fact that alcohol is openly consumed in the park. On one winter walk through the middle of the park I left behind my favorite flask in a bunkhouse. I called the park headquarters when got home and asked them to save it for me if anyone found it. I was assured that they would do so.

Perhaps the language is deliberately ambiguous to make it easier to oust those who abuse the privilege.

WEary

Weary, you are making a GREAT point. Let me do it clearly; it shows the difference between a lawyer and a client.

A lawyer's job is to give a client full information about what the law requires and forbids, and what the risks are. Sometimes - but not always - the lawyer will know the practicalities of a situation, but that's not essential. I'm being a lawyer when I interpret the law to say: "Thou shalt not..." to say, "No means no."

A client takes that information and decides whether the risk of violation is high enough to make it an issue. You're saying, for instance, "They don't mind; it's not an issue in practice." That's good. You've heard the law, assessed the risk, and you decide what to do. That's the job of a client.

Thanks for helping me to explain this. Too many people don't understand it.

The Weasel

I know for a fact that alcohol is openly consumed in the park.

the rules and regs say NO alcohol in maine state parks but i called the BSP main office and asked them if one could consume alcohol in BSP and the lady told me it was fine as long as nobody got loud or rowdy. rules are made to be bent and broken.

the rules and regs say NO alcohol in maine state parks but i called the BSP main office and asked them if one could consume alcohol in BSP and the lady told me it was fine as long as nobody got loud or rowdy. rules are made to be bent and broken.
Lone Wolf. You are right for all but one state park. For all parks except Baxter, the rules are clear. Baxter, however, was set up by Governor Baxter under a whole different set of rules. The good governor set up a three-member authority to regulate his park, and the Legislature concurred. Baxter rules are not the rules that govern other state parks in Maine.

In other parks the consumption of alcohol is flatly prohibited. In Baxter, the rules say general state alcohol laws will prevail. The general laws say no drinking in public places. In Baxter your campsite is not considered a public place, but rather your private domain.

If I drink a beer in public view while visiting the state park five miles from my home, I'll receive a warning or maybe be arrested -- if a ranger walks by.

If I am drinking wine at my campsite in Baxter and a ranger walks by he will probably smile or wave -- or perhaps stop to chat about the weather, or the mountain, or how well I'm enjoying my visit.

If the wine gets mentioned at all it will deal with the make or vintage, or his comment that he prefers bourbon.

Technically, drinking at a Baxter park public picnic table is illegal, as is a celebratory toast on the summit. But usually such violations are ignored, also, in my experience.

Weary

Other places, including shelters, along the Trail seem to be getting "no alcohol allowed" rules, along with increased enforcement. This site is an ATC study about several shelters. It's in PDF format; open it and search for "alcohol". Two of the shelters (1 with existing prohibition, and another may have it soon) are mentioned as specific problem areas.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%7D/AT_Camping_Impacts.pdf

The Weasel

Weasel,

I found your article very worthwhile! I may be a bit biased in that I am a student of law and politics, but there are (as you state) a host of situations in which it is invaluable to be aware of your own legal rights and status. I was particularly interested in the concealed weapon and campsite search

One thing I would clarify is the gravity of the Endangered Species Act. The ESA covers literally hundreds of species of plants and animals along the path of the Appalachian Trail, and does not just punish killing this wildlife: it makes it illegal to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" them too!.

The penalties can be startlingly harsh, too: the Act limits punishment to a fine of $25,000 and/or up to one year in prison.

So, for your sake and theirs, be kind to our endangered neighbors!

Thanks again for a great resource!

More info: http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html

If anyone sees any need for new topics I will try to add them from time to time. Post them here, if so.

The Weasel

Quarterly call for new topics in the article or if there is anything others think needs updating. I am working on some revisions and will upload them in the next two weeks, so this is a good time for comments.

Poll is still open for those who have read the article, and voting is appreciated.

The Weasel

I only skimmed it quickly, Weasel, but it looks good. There are too many jurisdictions involved to be specific in a document such as this, but you've outlined the basics, and given the hiker an idea of what should be kept in mind. This is definitely recommended reading.

One of the topics that comes up at least annually is "Nude Hiking Day" or generally the concept of nude hiking. The link below (and the blog, generally) is a good piece of information, and while it is obviously limited to Los Angeles County, it is a good description of the concepts: That (a) in some places, nudity is only forbidden if it involves "lewdness" (in this case, California state law) while in other situations, ANY nudity is forbidden (such as Los Angeles County's ordinances for county parks).

I'll revise the article a bit based on this.

http://nudehiker.blogspot.com/2007/06/legal-los-angeles-county-sheriff-says.html

The Weasel

One of the topics that comes up at least annually is "Nude Hiking Day" or generally the concept of nude hiking. The link below (and the blog, generally) is a good piece of information, and while it is obviously limited to Los Angeles County, it is a good description of the concepts: That (a) in some places, nudity is only forbidden if it involves "lewdness" (in this case, California state law) while in other situations, ANY nudity is forbidden (such as Los Angeles County's ordinances for county parks).

I'll revise the article a bit based on this.

http://nudehiker.blogspot.com/2007/06/legal-los-angeles-county-sheriff-says.html

The WeaselIf you are revising your nudity section, which states

All states, and most towns/cities and counties have laws or
ordinances prohibiting public nudity and public sexual activity as
“indecent exposure” or “public lewdness” or similar terms.

please look into laws in the state of VT. The ongoing saga of Brattleboro suggests that public nudity is not banned in VT. The Boston globe writes (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/07/15/vermont_town_can_bare_it_no_longer_mulls_nudity_ba n/)


Vermont has no state laws against public nudity, although a handful of cities and towns have enacted anti nudity ordinances.

:-?

If you are revising your nudity section, which states
please look into laws in the state of VT. The ongoing saga of Brattleboro suggests that public nudity is not banned in VT. The Boston globe writes (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/07/15/vermont_town_can_bare_it_no_longer_mulls_nudity_ba n/)


:-?

I looked, and Vermont is consistent with many states. "Lewd and lascivious conduct" - which generally includes public nudity and is vague enough that prosecutors and law enforcement officers can (and sometimes do, as the forest service agents mentioned in the Los Angeles County situation I just posted) argue that it "lewd and lascivious conduct" includes nudity even in a non-sexualized way. In Vermont, the offense is apparently a 5 year felony.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutetext/13/2rg@01!.htm

Not the first time the Globe has been wrong. Hate to ruin your faith in it.

The Weasel

I think that it all goes back to the law of man kind.. Respect 1 an other an fore most away from the concrete jungle respect the land. Fore with out it we would have nouthing.

I think that it all goes back to the law of man kind.. Respect 1 an other an fore most away from the concrete jungle respect the land. Fore with out it we would have nouthing.

Yeah, well, sorry: "The law of mankind" don't apply in trial courts. So if you're gonna let Willy and the Boys hang out in public, watch out. The penalties can be far worse than you - or the Boston Globe - may realize.

The Weasel

Strange but true: A guy in Florida moons a vehicle - one of the passengers was a 14 year old boy - the 'mooner' is arrested and charged with a sex crime and will apparently have to register as a sex offender if convicted.
I don't know if other states are becoming that draconian but it's something to think about if you are planning on mooning the cog railroad at Mt. Washington. There will no doubt be kids on board. :eek:

Strange but true: A guy in Florida moons a vehicle - one of the passengers was a 14 year old boy - the 'mooner' is arrested and charged with a sex crime and will apparently have to register as a sex offender if convicted.
I don't know if other states are becoming that draconian but it's something to think about if you are planning on mooning the cog railroad at Mt. Washington. There will no doubt be kids on board. :eek:

Lug, that's what got my point on "nude hiking day" going back in the day when it was a thread, before the Article (which makes precisely your point as emphatically as I can): People think a little "public nudity" ticket is no big deal, plead guilty, pay $50 or so, and then, later, find out they are sex offenders. Smart: Fight the ticket. Smartest: Don't go nude in public.

Hate to say that, but it's one of those things where "probabilities" are really unforgiving: "Lit matches next to gas tanks probably won't make them explode."

Someday, someone is going to get busted for this along the AT and get their life ruined when some bunch of kids is on the trail and sees some old bearded guy with nothing but a hipbelt across his front, and some prosecutor is going to realize that busting one Yankee thruhiker don't cost him any votes from the local Baptist Church come next election day.

The Weasel

In Vermont, the offense is apparently a 5 year felony.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutetext/13/2rg@01!.htm

Not the first time the Globe has been wrong. Hate to ruin your faith in it.

What Alligator typed ("The ongoing saga of Brattleboro suggests that public nudity is not banned in VT.") is true.
Not the first time some California lawyer didn't know what he was talking about.

What Alligator typed ("The ongoing saga of Brattleboro suggests that public nudity is not banned in VT.") is true.
Not the first time some California lawyer didn't know what he was talking about.


Don't hold back, TJ, tell us how you really feel.

I looked, and Vermont is consistent with many states. "Lewd and lascivious conduct" - which generally includes public nudity and is vague enough that prosecutors and law enforcement officers can (and sometimes do, as the forest service agents mentioned in the Los Angeles County situation I just posted) argue that it "lewd and lascivious conduct" includes nudity even in a non-sexualized way. In Vermont, the offense is apparently a 5 year felony.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutetext/13/2rg@01!.htm

Not the first time the Globe has been wrong. Hate to ruin your faith in it.

The WeaselOne can find mention of the ongoing Brattleboro nude saga across the net:rolleyes: . Vermont has no state law against nudity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273216,00.html

Strange that the town council would feel they need to pass a separate emergency measure to ban nudity if they already had an enforceable law on the books.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19brfs-nude.html?ex=1342497600&en=9fc996ae121519b4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The VT State attorney general. http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=5013117
"Simply the fact that you're unclothed is not against the law," says Bill Sorrell, D-Vt. Attorney General.

Now lewdness and lascivity will get you arrested
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070517/D8P6D3H01.html

You ought to fix your article:cool: .

Someday, someone is going to get busted for this along the AT and get their life ruined when some bunch of kids is on the trail and sees some old bearded guy with nothing but a hipbelt across his front, and some prosecutor is going to realize that busting one Yankee thruhiker don't cost him any votes from the local Baptist Church come next election day.

Absolutely. Watching too much Law & Order can give the impression that law enforcement is primarily interested in justice. I don't want to make any blanket accusations, but it is best to assume that you will find prosecutors and LEOs out there who are primarily interested in successfully racking up convictions. That is how a career is advanced in those fields.

Besides, said prosecutor (and/or LEO) may be someone who happens to think that a conviction early in your life is preferable to letting you continue unrepentant in your evil ways to later burn in hell. He or she may be the parent of small children (or dating age daughters) who is not amused in the least by people who would indulge in antics like those described. They may even be convinced that such behavior makes it highly likely that you are EXACTLY the sort that Megan's Law was intended to target.

When in Rome, at least take into account how the Romans think.

...
When in Rome, at least take into account how the Romans think.Absolutely. And when in Vermont take into account how the Vermonters think:-? .

Thank you for taking the time (I'm sure it was significant time), to create this document. I read portions and will use this as a reference if needed.

I was pleased to see you included a section about dogs.

Thanks for all your hard work Thanks to you also for giving it to so many for free. To those who disagree just to be disagreeable, its to bad you don't have anything better to do. Also realize that your sarcasm reflects badly on your own name. How would you like if people were nasty with you. Weazel keep up the good work.

Absolutely. Watching too much Law & Order can give the impression that law enforcement is primarily interested in justice. I don't want to make any blanket accusations, but it is best to assume that you will find prosecutors and LEOs out there who are primarily interested in successfully racking up convictions. That is how a career is advanced in those fields.

Besides, said prosecutor (and/or LEO) may be someone who happens to think that a conviction early in your life is preferable to letting you continue unrepentant in your evil ways to later burn in hell. He or she may be the parent of small children (or dating age daughters) who is not amused in the least by people who would indulge in antics like those described. They may even be convinced that such behavior makes it highly likely that you are EXACTLY the sort that Megan's Law was intended to target.

When in Rome, at least take into account how the Romans think.
I worked with LEOs on a daily basis for around a decade many years ago. In addition to the warnings you cite, a significant minority of cops abuse their power. When I served in a 200-man Military Police unit 90 percent of the physical alterations involved five percent of the unit. Drunks allegedly became violent with only a few of us. Those that did invariably were injured while being subdued.

It was obvious to me that some MP's took pleasure in provioking violence. They got away with it because their is a code in law enforcement. "Don't rat on your fellow officers.."

I observed the same behavior during the years I interacted daily with a civilian police force. A few officers liked provoking violence. Others would stretch the law and stretch the truth. I walked into the police station once as someone was being booked for being drunk. Another officer whispered to me, "that guy isn't drunk." But that is as far as the protest went. The guy spent the night in jail and paid his fine the next morning.

Weary

I'm in the process of doing some revisions to this article (go to the head of this thread and you should see it, if you're unfamiliar with it), and invite any comments or suggestions. There are two topics that I am most interested in that I'd like comments/information on, in particular:

1) Drinking issues, including the recent issue in which people were ticketed on public lands.

2) "Vagrancy" issues, including some towns in several places (not necessarily along the AT) which are restricting/prohibing "homeless" actions (which thruhikers can sometimes seem similar to) including begging (which sometimes "Yogi-ing" seems like), not having a fixed address, hitching prohibitions, and other similar things.

If people have questions generally, ask them; I'll try to answer (others can too, of course) and questions can indicate things that I might put in the article.

Rusty

Bump -----

Bump -----

Howdy to both of you, THE Weasel and ROCK

If people have questions generally, ask them; I'll try to answer (others can too, of course) and questions can indicate things that I might put in the article.

While the advise regarding trespassing may be well intentioned, it is not complete. In many places, there are no blanket prohibitions against walking on to private property that has not been properly posted.

A quick google will provide a sense of things. Like here, for example: http://public.findlaw.com/http//realestate.findlaw.com/trespassing/select-state-laws-on-trespassing.html
Check out NY, for example.

When hiking off trail or exploring the nature in your own communities, one should always be respectful of your neighbors regardless of the law. But while its important to educate people on the law, lets not create more than we already have!

If you hear an owl out your window, grab you flashlight and go for it. In many areas people may think you are nuts, but you wont be a criminal!

my comment? this article or whatever it is, is not needed. decent, law abiding PEOPLE know what to do. hikers are different. entitled :rolleyes:

my comment? this article or whatever it is, is not needed. decent, law abiding PEOPLE know what to do.

yup. exactly.

While the advise regarding trespassing may be well intentioned, it is not complete. In many places, there are no blanket prohibitions against walking on to private property that has not been properly posted.

A quick google will provide a sense of things. Like here, for example: http://public.findlaw.com/http//realestate.findlaw.com/trespassing/select-state-laws-on-trespassing.html
Check out NY, for example.

***

When hiking off trail or exploring the nature in your own communities, one should always be respectful of your neighbors regardless of the law. But while its important to educate people on the law, lets not create more than we already have!



Rick:

Thank you for that link. I'll do some modifying based on it, but note that (a) it mentions that trespassing is forbidden in all other states (even for hunters) even if land is unposted, which covers all AT states other than NY, MD and VT; (b) as to MD and VT, trespassing is permitted only under certain conditions for hunters, which would almost certainly mean someone in possession of a hunting license, during a hunting season, and that leaves out most AT hikers; and (c) as to most of the "exception" states (including my old home of Michigan) the listing relates only to hunters. The New York situation is much more "open" to anyone, although some land may be considered "improved" even if part of it doesn't look like it.

Beyond that, though, trespassing still is pretty much forbidden, as the intro the that link says. While rarely enforced, such laws are there to be honored. They also result in major differences in treatment if a person is injured on someone else's land even if the owner is very negligent; trespassers get a very low level of protection from negligence.

Thanks, though. This helps. I'll probably include the link in the revision.

Rusty

Weeeeeasy!

Thank you for that link. I'll do some modifying based on it, but note that (a) it mentions that trespassing is forbidden in all other states (even for hunters) even if land is unposted

That wasn't my reading, but having grown up in NY perhaps the things I learned as a boy are coloring my interpretation.

In any event, I thought for sure that the posting requirement applied in other states. Maine comes to mind.

For me, this issue has real-world implications so I find the topic most interesting. I hope I am right.

It's my understanding that the law in Maine allows people to walk wherever they want, provided the land is not posted against tresspass, or unless the owners specifically tell you that you can't walk on their property.

I know this has traditionally been true. But the Legislature has messed with the tresspass laws in recent years, and I haven't always followed the changes in any detail.

I know the rules against tresspass by ATV's were strengthened slightly -- but not nearly enough.

Weary

Weary, I'm not going to make the article state-specific, for all 55 or so USA jurisdictions, and I'm not certain about Maine, but I took a look at Maine Statutes and it looks as if you are correct, at least as to people on foot. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/12/title12sec10657.html

There are other provisions dealing with vehicles and loose dogs and other animals. I'm not getting into those things.

I would guess that Maine law would also prohibit intruders from 'improved' lands, such as farm fields, home lawns, and other places that were neither fenced nor posted. But that's a guess right now. Still, it's a pretty safe one: You can't wander around someone's back yard just because it's not "posted".

Thanks.

rusty


It's my understanding that the law in Maine allows people to walk wherever they want, provided the land is not posted against tresspass, or unless the owners specifically tell you that you can't walk on their property.

I know this has traditionally been true. But the Legislature has messed with the tresspass laws in recent years, and I haven't always followed the changes in any detail.

I know the rules against tresspass by ATV's were strengthened slightly -- but not nearly enough.

Weary

It's my understanding that the law in Maine allows people to walk wherever they want, provided the land is not posted against tresspass, or unless the owners specifically tell you that you can't walk on their property.


Weary

In NYS, that is true. And any No Trespassing signs need to contain the name and address of the landowner. If the name and address is not filled in on the No Trespassing signs, they can be ignored. Again, that's NYS. At least it was 8-10 years ago.

Here in Tennessee, there is a home in Ooltewah with a HUGE sign on the gated driveway that says "Trespassers Will Be Shot. No Questions Asked."

Here in Tennessee, there is a home in Ooltewah with a HUGE sign on the gated driveway that says "Trespassers Will Be Shot. No Questions Asked."

Possibly excessive. But local laws vary, so be careful where you walk! ;)

Possibly excessive.

The best No Trespassing sign along the AT was on the fence to the National Zoo's breeding farm.

Not sure if its still there. A real classic.

I would guess that Maine law would also prohibit intruders from 'improved' lands, such as farm fields, home lawns, and other places that were neither fenced nor posted. But that's a guess right now. Still, it's a pretty safe one: You can't wander around someone's back yard just because it's not "posted".

Looks like land in Massachusetts needs to be posted, too. But there are some exceptions in the statutes. Like Cranberry Bogs and Orchards.

Glad we haven't gone overboard.

Rickb-"The best No Trespassing sign along the AT was on the fence to the National Zoo's breeding farm.

Not sure if its still there. A real classic."What makes you think it's still there?;)
4686(click for larger image)

How about this one? Looks like they replaced a stolen sign not long before the photo was taken. :eek:

If anyone is eaten by an animal (or anything else) at the National Zoo, please call me as soon as possible. I don't get easy cases often, and I can make the decedent's family 2/3 rich.:banana

Rusty

Has the attachment been removed? Where can I download this article?

I'm trying to figure that out now.

Hey Rusty - Do this:

Comment-> Additional Options (underneath the posting box)-> Managa Attachments-> Browse-> Navigate to your file and select Open -> Upload -> After the file has uploaded, go to the bottom of that pop-up and select Close This Window -> Then Submit Reply

The attachment is fixed.

I've made some updating on trespassing, and one member may be sending me (here or separately) some good suggestions on contact with law enforcement authorities. Other suggestions are welcome; I'd like to finish the update by the end of August.

Rusty

I'd suggest adding information to The A.T. Thru-hiker's Companion on fires among other things at the appropriate locations. Fires come up often and few if anyone at all seems to be clear on the issue in certain areas.

Too much will not be remembered when people are on the A.T. and few seem to carry ATC's guides these days. I did and thought I benefitted from them, but I expect not many can be sold on that idea.

Thank you for your efforts.

Shades, are you suggesting a section in this article about fires?

TW

Many people are already claiming your article is too long. I think it's important, useful and could be expanded. Whether it would reach the audience it should and whether they will remember what they read when they should is what concerns me.

I'd like to see more of what is in ATC's guidebooks which today's through hikers refuse to carry put in The Thru-Hiker's Companion. Someone or a committee:rolleyes: needs to give it a thorough going over to see if through hikers are informed about what behavior is expected of them. When or where one may kindle fires in the mid-Atlantic states where the A.T. is on state-owned land is only one item about which the majority seem to be clueless.

Maybe you could simply point out things are different in the middle and refer through hikers to one of the guidebooks which should all provide this information.

Maybe you could simply point out things are different in the middle and refer through hikers to one of the guidebooks which should all provide this information.

The guidebooks never really got the camping regs in the Whites correct. Not a big deal, though.

The one legal area that seems to be missing is that surrounding carrying used stoves and fuel bottles on airplanes.

Shades, are you suggesting a section in this article about fires?

TW

I think there is a lot of misinformation on that. I once had I guy tell me I was breaking the law simply for having a fire in a Federal Wilderness Area.

I'll think on the "fires" topic. But having something that says, "Fires may be regulated in different ways" isn't much help to backpackers, and this article tries not to be focused on the AT alone, which means wildly different laws from state to state. (California is really, really hard on fires.) Suggestions?

TW

http://www.smokeybear.com/index.asp

I think the article is most useful for preliminary planning purposes. I mean things that must be done before reaching the A.T. for an extended hike or are generally applicable.

When things differ from one location to another, the information specific to particular locations is best mentioned in the guidebooks which hikers should have with them to refer to as needed.

There are two really good videos, one by a policeman and one by a lawyer explaining why you should never ever ever talk to the police without a lawyer present even if you are innocent. They are over 20 minutes each but well worth watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8373041405652860375&vt=lf&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en

There are two really good videos, one by a policeman and one by a lawyer explaining why you should never ever ever talk to the police without a lawyer present even if you are innocent. They are over 20 minutes each but well worth watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8373041405652860375&vt=lf&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en

Outstanding videos, excellent information, and I appreciate you posting the links.

When stopped and questions by police, never for any reason whatsoever talk to them. Keep your mouth SHUT and exercise your constitutional rights and ask for an attorney.

That's probably more confrontational than is a good idea. To say it more briefly than I probably do, answer questions about who you are and why you are in that location politely and briefly. You only need to ask for an attorney if it appears that they are questioning you further about a crime that they think you may have committed or if they ask you to get into a police car or are taken to a station.

TW

Thank you, Weasel. I found the article interesting and useful. My sons and I just finished up a section hike last week and in fact we were discussing vagrancy laws on the trail because they carried very little money and I was worried that if we were separated in a trail town could they be considered vagrants. I would be very interested in future revisions. I think the length is just fine. It's the law - not easily summarized! I appreciate your sharing this with our community.

That's probably more confrontational than is a good idea. To say it more briefly than I probably do, answer questions about who you are and why you are in that location politely and briefly. You only need to ask for an attorney if it appears that they are questioning you further about a crime that they think you may have committed or if they ask you to get into a police car or are taken to a station. TW
I forget the details, but recently the Maine Supreme Court refused to order a new trial. The defense lawyer had argued that the prosecutor in his summary had improperly pointed out that his client had refused to speak to law enforcement people until he had a lawyer present.

The justices decided that didn't matter. At least that is how I remember the newspaper and electronic stories about the case. I'll have to look it up.

Weary

I forget the details, but recently the Maine Supreme Court refused to order a new trial. The defense lawyer had argued that the prosecutor in his summary had improperly pointed out that his client had refused to speak to law enforcement people until he had a lawyer present.

The justices decided that didn't matter. At least that is how I remember the newspaper and electronic stories about the case. I'll have to look it up.

Weary
I have explored further. The case involved charges of murder. The defendant claimed self defense.

The Supreme Court said the defense should have objected and asked for a mistrial when the remarks were made, not later in an appeal. It also said that regardless of the prosecution's errors, the case as a whole justified a finding of guilty.

This suggests to me that one should choose ones lawyer with great care.

Weary

Like most reference materials, it contains more information than one might need in any particular situation, neverthless, it is an excellent survey of legal issues related to hiking. Good job.

I can't get it to open for me :(

Please let me know if you continue to have problems, and ALSO send a "complaint" to the moderator**** so they know there is a problem. I sent you a PM about how to contact me directly and I can send you a copy.

TW

Can't open it either. Running Firefox on Linux. Never had a problem opening a PDF.

This file, when saved is a .php. It will open in a text editor and appears to be an HTML file.

Hmmm..you guys are right. The file attachment is broken for some reason.

TW, you may need to re-attach the pdf. using the manage attachments feature. If need be you can send the article to me and I can do it for you.

Hmmm..you guys are right. The file attachment is broken for some reason.

TW, you may need to re-attach the pdf. using the manage attachments feature. If need be you can send the article to me and I can do it for you.
e
S---

Thank you. In the interest of ease and functionality, I'd prefer to send it to you. Can you send me your email address and I'll "reply" with the most current version? I assume you have my email but if not send me a PM and I'll send it to you.

TW

This is the most recent version of Law for Backpackers 101. I may revise it in the near future to include issues involving Service Animals on the trail; until then, a recent thread can be found by doing a search for "service animals".

The Weasel

seems like a lot of time wasted to me. Anyone one with one iota of common sense does not need a reference guide to determine if they are within the boundaries of the law. Any rules/regulations/laws that one will encounter along the AT are posted or in one of the 3 handbooks. ie. no dogs in the Smokies, no fires in CT etc.... I can understand how the Rainman clones out there might derive some enjoyment of having yet another reference book to assist them in pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong.

There is however 1 rule I'm not entirely clear on however. What exactly are the rules and regs regarding packing out and disposing of ones feces? Surely there must be someone on WB with some expertise with this.

Interesting read. I just skimmed the sections I didn't feel were pertinent to me. Thanks for all the work.

One section that has me somewhat confused was regarding Landowner Liability when a trail crosses private property. My understanding, supported by NCTA and NPS is that the Michigan Recreational Land Use Act limits a landowner's liability to virtually zero (except of course for intentional or grossly negligent hazards) if they allow the public onto their property for recreational purposes (free of charge, that is). I was also under the understanding that virtually all states have similar laws on the books.

Not really a major issue for hikers, but as one who is trying to get more folks to open their land to trail construction, it is a real issue. Is this limited liability not as widespread as I thought?

Pebble:

First, don't waste your time if you think that's what it is. There are a lot of urban myths about the law, however, that even some lawyers believe. But it's a lot more risky for you to be unaware of them. A few examples: Can you legally have alcoholic beverages in your pack in Baxter? Can you tell a police officer she can't search your pack? Is it legal to hike nude on the Summer Solstice? If you don't have insurance, does a hospital have to treat a trail injury? There are more. Ignore them if you think it waste of time. Not my problem. But don't later say, "I didn't know."

Second, yes, some places have rules on what to do with human waste, and some parks that backpackers use require waste to be packed out. Most parks have their own rules, and you should consult the place you will be hiking in for them.

TW

Damn, Pebble, I think this is one of the more interesting and useful threads on this website.

There's a really simple remedy for threads and posts that don't interest you, people:

Like, um, don't read 'em.

My, that was difficult. :rolleyes:

I was disappointed that the section on trespass and private property was not corrected to reflect how laws on that matter vary by state in some very significant ways.

I have some other quibbles, but none that rise to a level that could not be covered by a blanket statement that the published information is intended as a general guideline rather than an definitive resource.

Just one person's perspective.

Of course it's meant as a general guideline......neither Weasel nor anyone else described this information as a "definitive" statement.

The section on trespass is so incomplete that it borders on just plain wrong, Jack.

That said, as a general rule it is safe to say "don't go on other people's property" without permission.

That denies the law and tradition in many places, however.

Geez, then write an alternate article if you find a present one incomplete or lacking.

Or maybe it's just easier to criticize someone else's time and efforts. :rolleyes:

I think it is a wonderful and informative article...

Jack is being "Jack".

The Weasel specifically asked:

"If anyone has suggestions, I welcome them, and comments about anything in here - pro or con - are welcome."

Fact is, he acknowledged the law behind points that I (and others) raised and in this very thread. I was disappointed that he never got around to making the correction.

I have left others alone.

Now keep still.

Um, don't go telling anyone to be still or anything remotely close, Rick.

You're one of the biggest professional whiners here.

The guy spent a lot of time writing an article, and he's one of the rare folks who actually brings true expertise to the subject he's writing about. If you think you can do better, then do so. Have at it. But honestly, this website is peopled by folks who have little better to do than belittle the comments or work of others and it gets old.

Instead of telling folks to be still, why not put your butt in motion and contribute some articles of your own.

give it a break, boys. freakin' childish

Couldn't hurt you write an article either, Wolf. It's not like you don't have opinions on things. :D

Interesting read. I just skimmed the sections I didn't feel were pertinent to me. Thanks for all the work.

One section that has me somewhat confused was regarding Landowner Liability when a trail crosses private property. My understanding, supported by NCTA and NPS is that the Michigan Recreational Land Use Act limits a landowner's liability to virtually zero (except of course for intentional or grossly negligent hazards) if they allow the public onto their property for recreational purposes (free of charge, that is). I was also under the understanding that virtually all states have similar laws on the books.

Not really a major issue for hikers, but as one who is trying to get more folks to open their land to trail construction, it is a real issue. Is this limited liability not as widespread as I thought?

Lyle:

I will look into that, and revise if necessary. My initial take is tuo be cautious about a landowner's over-reliance on such things, and before granting a trail easement, an owner should obtain both independent counsel and a 'comfort letter' from the trail organization. (A 'comfort letter' is an express, "Dont worry, be happy" letter that tells someone the basis for the lack of need to worry.)

Thanks for raising the point!!

TW

The section on trespass is so incomplete that it borders on just plain wrong, Jack.

That said, as a general rule it is safe to say "don't go on other people's property" without permission.

That denies the law and tradition in many places, however.

Rickb:

I'm grateful for an suggestions on improvement for this, and if you can be a bit more specific (you don't have to write it for me but more than "it's wrong" would help), I'll look into what changes might make sense.

Thanks,

The Weasel

Rick:

I've gone back, and you made a point about trespassing well over a year ago. I responded to it fully here, and (in Post 68, I think) I noted that I had revised the Trespassing section. You've said nothing since then, and this thread only became active when another user found that the link to the article was broken. Your current post says nothing more than that the section of my article "borders on just plain wrong."

As I said in the post above, and as you so pointedly note, I welcome suggestions about how to improve this. Recognizing that law is often a matter of opinion among attorneys ("One lawyer in a small town will generally starve, but two can make a pretty good living." - A. Lincoln), it is inappropriate to simply say, "Wrong!" without indication of why. Doing so raises understandable concerns about whether the writer is pot-stirring.

The link you provided a year ago has been responded to, in detail, both in this thread and in the revision to the article. If you have any more specificity, let me know and I'll look at it, as my goal is to be as accurate as possible in a short work like this, in order to be useful. But the user is cautioned at the beginning that it is a general reference, and I'm not going to parse the fine points of why (if at all) Arizona laws regarding trespass are different from those of the Virgin Islands.

Thank you. I look forward to you comments; if they are extended, send me a PM and I will give you an Email address you can forward them to.

TW

TW,

Here is a link to the wording of the Michigan Law that I am referring to:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/recreate/mi_rec.htm

Thanks again for your time and effort.

Pebble:

First, don't waste your time if you think that's what it is. There are a lot of urban myths about the law, however, that even some lawyers believe. But it's a lot more risky for you to be unaware of them. A few examples: Can you legally have alcoholic beverages in your pack in Baxter? Can you tell a police officer she can't search your pack? Is it legal to hike nude on the Summer Solstice? If you don't have insurance, does a hospital have to treat a trail injury? There are more. Ignore them if you think it waste of time. Not my problem. But don't later say, "I didn't know."

Second, yes, some places have rules on what to do with human waste, and some parks that backpackers use require waste to be packed out. Most parks have their own rules, and you should consult the place you will be hiking in for them.

TW
I will not say "I didn't know" I'll just say "I didn't care". Laws serve a purpose but to often times they are not combined with common sense. For example, If I want to take a bottle of champagne to summit Mt K to celebrate is that illegal? I don't care. It's not as if I'm going to throw a keg party in Baxter and smash bottles all over the place. And if local law enforcement is too obtuse to realize what a ridiculous waste of time it would be to arrest or attempt to cite me for such a horrible transgression so be it. I'll have a good laugh on the ride back to the station with Barney Fife. As long as one brings no harm to others and uses common sense in their daily lives I say good for them. Unfortunately the lawmakers and those that enforce the laws do not always use common sense. and therein lies the problem. Another example happened to me just the other day. I was buying a bottle of wine and got carded. I did not have my I.D. and was denied purchase. I'm 41 years old. A 60 something year old man in front of me said they card him every time. And he was talking to his friend at the time. The cashier! Even though they are friends he still has to show her his I.D. each time he wants to buy alcohol! I understand the law was made to prevent underage drinking. If someone is of questionable age card them. Makes perfect sense, but carding a man in his sixties who you've known for years? This is why I will say "I don't care" instead of "I didn't know".

Rick:

I've gone back, and you made a point about trespassing well over a year ago. I responded to it fully here, and (in Post 68, I think) I noted that I had revised the Trespassing section. You've said nothing since then, and this thread only became active when another user found that the link to the article was broken. Your current post says nothing more than that the section of my article "borders on just plain wrong."

As I said in the post above, and as you so pointedly note, I welcome suggestions about how to improve this. Recognizing that law is often a matter of opinion among attorneys ("One lawyer in a small town will generally starve, but two can make a pretty good living." - A. Lincoln), it is inappropriate to simply say, "Wrong!" without indication of why. Doing so raises understandable concerns about whether the writer is pot-stirring.

The link you provided a year ago has been responded to, in detail, both in this thread and in the revision to the article. If you have any more specificity, let me know and I'll look at it, as my goal is to be as accurate as possible in a short work like this, in order to be useful. But the user is cautioned at the beginning that it is a general reference, and I'm not going to parse the fine points of why (if at all) Arizona laws regarding trespass are different from those of the Virgin Islands.

Thank you. I look forward to you comments; if they are extended, send me a PM and I will give you an Email address you can forward them to.

TW

You may also want to revisit your comments to Weary's corrections regarding lawful entry onto non posted land in Maine. And Mogli's post regarding NY. Other AT states too.

Simply put, there are plenty of places along the AT corridor where tradition and law allow one to enter onto non posted private property in the backcountry.

Another place the article errs is regarding Alcohol within the bound of Baxter State Park.

The Park Authority lists the following regulation:

"General laws of the State pertaining to liquor and drugs apply within the Park. Maine law prohibits drinking of alcoholic beverages in public places."

The article states that since the park is a public place, it necessarily follows that one cannot legally drink within its bounds.

Not so.

Maine Law prohibits having sex in public places too. Were we to accept the article's interpretation of law, it would be illegal to have conjugal relations with your spouse in your tent or private cabin along Daicy pond!

Simply put, with regard to Alcohol laws, certain area within the park are in effect "private places" and other are "public". Even though the park is public. A discussion of the difference would be useful (ie table in front of your cabin or fire ring by your tent vs inside your tent or on at a communal shelter). The blanket statement in the article is wrong.

There are others.

I've never been a big fan of Weasels, however I went back and reread this one. It remains one of the best things ever posted on Whiteblaze. I don't like all the fact that some of the information is true, but reality has to be considered.

For those who read the above, I have three comments as a practical attorney:

(1) For those who, like Pebble, say "I don't care" what laws say, that's fine. As long as you know what the rules are, and are willing to bear the consequences if any ensue, you're making a rational choice. But if you don't know what the rules are before you decide to do something, you're no different than someone who jumps off a cliff and hopes there's a soft landing below. It's smart to 'look before you leap.'

His example of being 41 and "carded" is a good one, from the liquor store owner's perspective. There's someone who owns a valuable right (the liquor license) who knows that even one underage sale can cause a license suspension or revocation. The owner also knows that clerks may not be perfect in estimates of ages around 21, and also knows that a mistake is still a violation. So the owner makes a "fail safe" decision: Card everyone. Inconvenient for some? That's the owner's choice. But the point is clear: The owner knows the law and has made a rational decision. That's safer than, "What the heck!"

(2) For those who, like rickb, want to say, "The law doesn't mean what it says," I also say, "Good luck." It's a now-standard law enforcement tool (our retiring police chief, Bill Bratton, formerly of Boston and NY City, pioneered it) to use a "stop" for a minor violation to check for other, more serious, crime. That's why there are so many stops for broken tail lights: LEOs often want to look in a car to see what really might happening and to check on who is doing it. So yeah, have a beer at your picnic table by your tent. But if the Rangers want to, you've just giv en them cause to search your table, demand your ID, and check out your tent. If you don't care, I don't care either, and if it usually isn't going to be that way, fine. But I just saw a picture of one of my Eagle Scouts who just got his NPS badge as a LEO Ranger a couple months ago; it shows him with 240 lbs of drugs confiscated from a traffic stop in his park.

I wrote this article so that those who wanted a map of the legal territory could have one. Just as with topos, you're free not to use one, and you're free to go off the marked trail without one. But a lot of people like to know what might happen and what to plan for. It's for those that I wrote it, and I hope it helps make hiking better for them.

TW

This will be a long-ish post about Landowner Liability, Trespassing and Liability-Limiting Statutes such as the Michgian Recreational Landowner Act referred to above. (I'm admitted in Michigan, and I had it in mind when I wrote the article, but this deals with it, and similar statutes, more precisely.0

First, I want to reprint below the section (pages 19-20) of my Article:

c. Landowner Liability. Landowners can be responsible for
injuries that occur on their property, depending on who is injured and how they came to be there. Almost any injury occurring to a “business invitee” is actionable, since such a person is invited to the business premises of another. “Licensees” are those who have a “license” to be present, which may be express (such as written permission) or implied, such as a landowner allowing a trail to be used for a long period of time, and a landowner is under a care to reasonably keep the open portion of her or his land safe for invitees. A trespasser is a person to whom access is denied, but still goes on the land. Even a trespasser is entitled to have the premises safe from dangers that are open and obvious, such as mineshafts or other dangerous situations. “Posting” laws can further reduce landowner liability, but landowners and hikers should not automatically assume that an injury is, or is not, one that can be the basis for a lawsuit.

Statutes such as the Michigan Act (which can be found here: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/recreate/mi_rec.htm ) expressly provide that if a landowner is charging for access, or otherwise receives "consideration" (something of value). Such users are the "invitees" referred to above. The Michigan Act is poorly drafted, since it isn't clear if the consideration can be indirect, i.e. if someone else provides consideration to the landowner to permit such uses, such as might be the case for a Trail Organization, e.g. the NCTA or (in a state with an identical statute along the AT) the ATC paying a modest license or easement fee.

Second, the article deals (this is a 'weasel phrase' but then, of course, I am THE Weasel) with common law as it exists throughout the US; common law can, of course, be modified by statutes such as this, each of which is a bit different, and the article was not written, by the way, for the benefit of landowners but for hikers. If there are special statutes in some states, presumably the owners will be aware of them.

Third, and this is not weaseling, the statute continues to keep landowners liable for "gross negligence" and "wanton misconduct." Ahhh! Of such wondrous words are Plaintiff's Lawyer's fortunes made. "Gross negligence" is defined, usefully, in West's Legal Dictionary as:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of punitive, whereas gross negligence does not.

In other words, if a landowner lets a backpacker leave a banana peel in the trail, there's no lawsuit for a slip-and-fall. On the other hand, what, I may ask, is a "conscious disregard of the need to use reasonable care?" Well, it's what a properly-instructed jury says it is. "Yeah, I knew that tree was a gonna fall down on top of that shelter after that storm, but I really didn't figure it was that big a deal." Dang. Claim like that "goes to the jury" which might find zero bucks for the plaintiff, or a few gazillion.

So as I said in the Article, don't assume that an injury is, or is not, the basis for a lawsuit. If you're a hiker, and you get hurt on someone else's land, see a lawyer. If you're a landowner in an area where there are recreational uses (hunting, camping, hiking) on your land, see a lawyer AND an insurance agent.

I'll tinker the next draft, but my statement of the law is, I think, still pretty good. If you disagree, save your breath. If you just want to go ahead and disregard the risks, well, on behalf of the entire legal profession, I thank you: People who take risks about what the law says and means make it possible for us lawyers to make a living defending the people who make mistakes about the risks. :banana
<SCRIPT>weal()</SCRIPT>

Another place the article errs is regarding Alcohol within the bound of Baxter State Park.

The Park Authority lists the following regulation:

"General laws of the State pertaining to liquor and drugs apply within the Park. Maine law prohibits drinking of alcoholic beverages in public places."

The article states that since the park is a public place, it necessarily follows that one cannot legally drink within its bounds.

Not so.

Maine Law prohibits having sex in public places too. Were we to accept the article's interpretation of law, it would be illegal to have conjugal relations with your spouse in your tent or private cabin along Daicy pond!

Simply put, with regard to Alcohol laws, certain area within the park are in effect "private places" and other are "public". Even though the park is public. A discussion of the difference would be useful (ie table in front of your cabin or fire ring by your tent vs inside your tent or on at a communal shelter). The blanket statement in the article is wrong.

There are others.

I suppose it depends on how Maine law generally considers tents and cabins. I would imagine it doesn't define those as "public places," and if not the article is correct.

I found the article very useful, and those, like Pebble Puppy, who don't care what the law is might find that it doesn't matter much to LEOs whether you care or not. I think it's a good article if only so that hikers know what some unexpected consequences might be; they can look further into such things on their own for particular laws in particular jurisdictions.

I'm thinking here particularly on the section involving being naked -- those who claim to not care what the laws are might be taken aback to discover that their blase attitude might result in having to register as a sex offender, regardless of how ridiculous they might think the law. For those who do care, further research might show them that there are certain places where nudity is not considered a sexual crime. Which might be of some relief.

I think it's a good idea to know the law, particularly if you suspect that you might choose to break it. You might choose to carry alcohol on the AT in Maryland or on PA State Gamelands, for example, but if you know the law governing that activity, you might be less likely to flaunt your illegal behavior. And you'd be thus more likely to get away with it.

And for many hikers, this article is a good reminder that while you may be outside of the bounds of your normal life when hiking, there are still laws that cover what you're doing, even when you're in the woods.

Thanks, Weasel, for spending what must have been quite a bit of time and effort putting this together.

You're welcome, Jester. It's been fun doing it.

You ask (sort of) a good question: Are tents and cabins "public places." I assume that's for questions of whether they can be searched. Generally speaking, no they aren't; the 4th Amendment recognizes that people have a legitimate expecation of privacy even in temporary structures like a tent. So if you're away from your tent, and there's no one else around it, and a LEO suspects you have illegal parakeets in it, she has to go get a search warrant (not as easy as it sounds) to unzip and find the birdies. So yeah, it's "private".

BUT: If you're sitting outside your tent and the door is open, and a ranger looks at you, sees your eyes are wobling out of focus and there's a little glass pipe on your sleeping bag, well, folks, that's probably "in plain view." You lose. So the ranger tells you to drop and spread, and after locking you down, checks out the inside of the tent and finds several unregistered Glocks. You probably lose again; it's a protective search.

Moral of the story: Yeah, your tent is private. Keep the door zipped all time time, and if a LEO comes by and you don't want it inspected, stand well away from the tent. That will work. Sometimes.

TW

Moral of the story: Yeah, your tent is private. Keep the door zipped all time time, and if a LEO comes by and you don't want it inspected, stand well away from the tent. That will work. Sometimes.

TW

Moral of the story: Leave your illegal drugs and unregistered guns at home.

I will not say "I didn't know" I'll just say "I didn't care". Laws serve a purpose but to often times they are not combined with common sense. For example, If I want to take a bottle of champagne to summit Mt K to celebrate is that illegal? I don't care. It's not as if I'm going to throw a keg party in Baxter and smash bottles all over the place. And if local law enforcement is too obtuse to realize what a ridiculous waste of time it would be to arrest or attempt to cite me for such a horrible transgression so be it. I'll have a good laugh on the ride back to the station with Barney Fife. As long as one brings no harm to others and uses common sense in their daily lives I say good for them. Unfortunately the lawmakers and those that enforce the laws do not always use common sense. and therein lies the problem. Another example happened to me just the other day. I was buying a bottle of wine and got carded. I did not have my I.D. and was denied purchase. I'm 41 years old. A 60 something year old man in front of me said they card him every time. And he was talking to his friend at the time. The cashier! Even though they are friends he still has to show her his I.D. each time he wants to buy alcohol! I understand the law was made to prevent underage drinking. If someone is of questionable age card them. Makes perfect sense, but carding a man in his sixties who you've known for years? This is why I will say "I don't care" instead of "I didn't know".
Sound like the store got burned and the owner said "never again." The fines are big and he could lose his liquor license, can't blame a small business man for looking out for his bread and butter.

Thanks for putting together this article, it hits pretty well every legal topic that is worth thinking about when starting a multiday/week hike through several different states.

..........