Calling out the Town of Chatham, VA and the Pittsylvania County Sheriff Office
What is on my agenda today? Simply, make sure the Pittsylvania County
Sheriff Office and the Town of Chatham, VA police department get a
warning that continued harrassment and surveillance of Lafayette
Hodnett shop comes to a end. A police department risks serious
liability and consequences for trying to enforce laws on private
property without a warrant or legitimate government purpose,
especially when continued activities has no link to any criminal
activity. So prior and constructive knowledge happens today for your
respective law enforcement agencies! The property is located next to
the Old Dutch Supermarket located within the Town limits of Town of
Chatham, Va. Your officers have been staked out there for no reason
at all, and you also know that this guy is named in a pending lawsuit
against you. He has been falsely arrested by you. You have bothered
and harass people that associate with me for whatever reason other
than a legitimate government purpose. So for now on, we are watching
you and videotaping you in the process. If it continues, than we will
take whatever action legally necessary to stop your practice of
ongoing intimidation and warrantless spying. I have sent you
complaints from direct friends of mines that have been giving separate
and unequal treatment of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia for
a long time, including local town and county ordinances. If we all
have a problem than its time for a face to face to fix the
insecurities that your agencies have. If not, than you are warned
that continued harassment will discontinue. I recommend you need to
cease and desist of your activities immediately. I drive up and down
Main Street regularly and see that police car in the shopping center
during the day and all times of night. It is enough public roadway
for him to still do his job. So, Im a direct witness. The name of
the business is H&C Pawn Shop. I have my notepad out and I take
pictures and I keep notes of what is going on for now on. I also
reported this message to the news outlets in the area and different
state agencies that deals with corrupt police departments. You are
harassing me and my friends and have yet to bring one criminal
indictment on any one of us. Your fishing expedition will be reported
as much as I feel like it. I have little time or patience for these
petty games. Your police departments are full of felons that are
waiting to be prosecuted. So your credibility to seek out wrongdoing
is further void and devoid of any truth. You have officially been
warned! I doubt anyone would be parked at the Old Dutch Supermarket
Parking lot after hours and have equal access to lot without police
harassment. So the question is did the owner of the property give
police department regular access to it after hours to hang out. If so
than thats a big question and the next question is can I personally
sit in that same parking lot after hours and hang out. This is my
Virginia FOIA request to view documents that state that the public can
hang out in the Old Dutch Supermarket after busiensses close. If so,
than I will be hanging out as well. I would like to view the
documents in whomever possession.
Merle T. Rutledge Jr
Notes and References below.
On the other hand, officers routinely commit technical or “common law”
trespassing, which is simply walking or driving onto private property
without the owner’s permission.3 Although technical trespassing is not
unlawful,4 it’s the type of trespassing that is most likely to
constitute a “search.”
Finally, in this article the word “curtilage” in used in a few places.
It’s a word from the common law which, for our purposes, simply means
the private property immediately surrounding a home; e.g., the front,
back, and side yards.5
1 Cohen v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 429, 434.
2 See Penal Code §§602(l), 602(n).
3 See Oliver v. United States (1984) 466 US 170, 183; People v.
Manderscheid (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 355, 361; People v. Zichwic (2001)
94 Cal.App.4th 944, 953; People v. Macioce (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 262,
271.
4 See People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 836 [“Since Katz, [the
U.S. Supreme Court has] consistently held that the presence or absence
of physical trespass by police is constitutionally irrelevant to the
question whether society is prepared to recognize an asserted privacy
interest as reasonable.” Quoting from California v. Ciraolo (1986) 476
US 207, 223 [dis.opn. of Powell, J.]; Oliver v. United States (1984)
466 US 170, 183, fn.15; United States v. Karo (1984) 468 US 705, 712-3
[“The existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to
the question of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated.”];
People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1015; People v. Zichwic
(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 944, 953-6; People v. Manderscheid (2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 355, 361. NOTE: Many people believe that entering property
without the owner’s consent is a criminal trespass but it isn’t unless
the person enters with intent to dispossess the rightful owner. See
People v. Wilkinson (1967) 248 Cal.App.2nd Supp. 906, 910 [“It is not
a violation of Penal Code section 602, subdivision (l) to enter
private property without consent unless such entry is followed by
occupation thereof without consent.”].
5 See Oliver v. United States (1984) 466 US 170, 180 [“At common law,
the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity
associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of
life, and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for
Fourth Amendment purposes.”]; California v. Ciraolo (1986) 476 US 207,
212-3 [“The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a
protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately
linked to
You can read the rest of the link at
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/police_trespassing.pdf
Merle Rutledge Jr
merletrutledge 