The stuff you see on TV pales in comparison to what's actually happening in people's homes and our courthouses.
In People v. Simmey R., Simmey R. (age 16) and Ronald R. (age 17) were charged with criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law Section 215.50(3)) for violating limited orders of protection which directed the youths to refrain from committing "assault, stalking, harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, intimidation, threats, or any criminal offense" against their mother, Linda P. [Apparently, Simmey and Ronald had previously been arrested for petit larceny (stealing money from their mother's pocketbook), criminal possession of stolen property (their mother's cash), and criminal possession of a weapon (a gravity knife), thus triggering the court's grant of the order.]*
After Simmey and Ronald were arrested (on May 16, 2006) for entering their mother's locked bedroom, the Kings County Criminal Court of the City of New York identified the question before it as whether that act comprised a violation of the order of protection. And, ultimately, the court concluded that it did not.
While recognizing that a locked door signified the mother's desire to exclude her children from that particular room, Simmey and Ronald were deemed "legal residents of the apartment," and were thus entitled to "occupy every part of the premises." The judge viewed the assignment of bedrooms as more of an "informal arrangement" or "matter of convenience," which could be changed from "time to time."**
Since the mother's enclosed area was not perceived to be a legally distinct or enforceable boundary, the court counseled as follows:
But so long as Defendants continue to share their mother's home as their residence, their act of entering her locked bedroom, while disobedient and perhaps worthy of domestic discipline, does not constitute a crime.
Although there was no suggestion as to what "domestic discipline" would have been appropriate under the circumstances, the judge was of the opinion that the matter was better suited for Family Court (rather than Criminal Court). As he observed:
Proceeding in Family Court would allow the complex issues raised in such situations to be addressed in a forum with expertise in family matters, without subjecting minor children to the stigma of criminal charges. Given the nature of such cases, the Court suggests that the People use their discretion to protect not only the parents in these cases, but the children as well.
Oy!
A well-intentioned outcome, but one which stands on shaky legal grounds.
Isn't trespass typically defined (in part) as "any" interference with a tenant's use of property without permission or authority? (Yes.)
Since the minor children were not named tenants, weren't their possessory interests in the unit subordinate to that of their mother's? (We think so.)
And, since criminal trespass seeks to discourage a "knowing" or "unlawful" entry upon another's space, wasn't the court taking some considerable liberties with its application of the governing law?*** (On that, we take the Fifth.)
For a copy of the Court's decision in People v. Simmey R., please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51500.htm
---------------------------
*Nice kids, huh?
**By the kids, apparently.
***See, e.g., New York Penal Law § 140.05, Trespass.
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
Trespass is a violation.
See also, Penal Law § 140.10, Criminal trespass in the third degree.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property:
(a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders ....