First hand eyewitnesses say that there was talk of charging Matt Lepacek with "espionage".Apparently, he was charged with criminal trespass. The elements of criminal trespass, as defined in New Hampshire, do not seem to be existing in this case.
"635:2. A person is guilty of criminal trespass under these circumstances if(b) [he] knowingly enters or remains:(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person . . ."
Number one, on the video, certainly, the owner of the venue (i.e. the "Spin Area") does NOT appear to be present, and does not appear to communicate to Matt that he was to leave.
It is not clear that Ed Goeas ever says directly to Matt that he is now trespassing or is unwanted, and directly asks him to leave. Goeas talks to other people. But, even if Goeas did, it is not clear he is an "authorized person" under the statute in New Hampshire. In fact, I don't believe Ed Goeas would be such an authorized person.
In fact, Goeas tries in an asshole manner, to talk to others about Matt, as if Matt were trash he wanted to have taken out. Thus, I did not hear any direct statement to Matt from either the owner of the premises nor from an authorized person, that he should leave, and then he refused. In fact, it appeared when the law enforcement personnel asked him to leave, he was very compliant and did so.
http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2002/0204/gaffn023.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment