State Laws and the Storm Chaser

[Marcelo Albuquerque]

Though this Wyoming law isn't directed at storm chasers the letter of the law could be used against storm chasers
particularly Section d (ii) & (iv)
Direct link to said law: https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882

Anyone else know of any other state laws that could be used against responsible storm chasers?

 

[Dan Robinson]

That's a very strange law that I've read some about and still don't quite understand its reason for being. You need to be trespassing for it to apply. If you're stopping in pull-offs on public roads, you're almost never trespassing unless you walk into a field next to the road.

 

[Marcelo Albuquerque]

From what I understand it was to keep individuals from testing runoff water for E. coli. I found out about the law through this Slate article.

 

[Jake Orosi]

Yeah I don't see why anyone would need to trespass while chasing. But the bill was passed just a couple months ago. I can't figure out what it's intended to address either. It's far too late to be a reaction to the Google car, and doesn't affect commercial drones. Some Wyoming legislator got tired of a lurking PI perhaps?

ETA: Ah, just saw the above. That figures. A bunch of those states out there also criminalized whistleblower videos at animal farm operations recently. I don't see how these blatantly hostile-to-the-public-interest laws get passed with practically no complaints from the local constituents.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

Yeah I don't see why anyone would need to trespass while chasing. But the bill was passed just a couple months ago. I can't figure out what it's intended to address either. It's far too late to be a reaction to the Google car, and doesn't affect commercial drones. Some Wyoming legislator got tired of a lurking PI perhaps?

ETA: Ah, just saw the above. That figures. A bunch of those states out there also criminalized whistleblower videos at animal farm operations recently. I don't see how these blatantly hostile-to-the-public-interest laws get passed with practically no complaints from the local constituents.

Usually because most people don't pay attention to the bills in legislation, they don't care, or don't know about it. It happens on all levels of government

 

[joel ewing]

Two things: As a guy who comes from a family where both grandparents and uncles farmed (Nebr.) I can promise you that even if a chaser parks completely off the side of a farm-market / county maintained road, without causing impediment to traffic or emergency vehicles, MOST county LEOS will side with the adjacent farm owner that that is "his" property....and make you move. You can argue the case later in court, will be the response. What happens typically is that stretch of land gets mowed and maintained by the farmer, thus creating the sense, even though not legally binding, that it's "his" property. Now, I can hear all of you in S.Track land screaming right now, and please don't think that I agree with this. I'm simply stating what a chaser is likely to face in the event the farmer makes the claim that it's "his" parcel....you can bet that the local LEOS WILL side with him the majority of the time....and make you move against your will.
Secondly: As a guy who's cousin was the general manager of a Nebraska "Hog Unit" ... as they're called, for many years....I believe the law was primarily aimed at curtailing those members of society that were vehemently against this type of pork farming, who typically would sneak onto properties and take photographs and video to be used in court. I DO believe that this law could certainly be used against chasers...absolutely.

 

[Jake Orosi]

That could be a pain, running into someone like that; but the great thing about working out of a car is that when you run into a cantankerous farmer backed by unsympathetic law enforcement, all you have to do is drive a mile or two down the road and park there instead.

 

[rdale]

I DO believe that this law could certainly be used against chasers...absolutely.

It absolutely CANNOT. If you read the law, it prevents the collection of resource data. You are assuming that means storm photos. But alas, they define resource data if you scroll down a bit:

"Resource data" means data relating to land or land use"

Taking pictures of clouds is not related to land or land use.

 

[Michael Snyder]

Though this Wyoming law isn't directed at storm chasers the letter of the law could be used against storm chasers
particularly Section d (ii) & (iv)
Direct link to said law: https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882

Anyone else know of any other state laws that could be used against responsible storm chasers?

If you are concerned, I would recommend looking into any case precedence involved with the section you linked us to.

 

[Matt Sellers]

Though this Wyoming law isn't directed at storm chasers the letter of the law could be used against storm chasers
particularly Section d (ii) & (iv)
Direct link to said law: https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882

Anyone else know of any other state laws that could be used against responsible storm chasers?

Basically, if you stay on the county/state roads, you're fine. I have run into angry landowners in NE when I thought I had a road option through a ranch but it was a road choice I should not have taken... and I got out quick. I don't think this will affect our world at all as long as we're not driving through fields... and no responsible chaser will ever do that intentionally.

 

[James Hammett]

Bad law but I don't think it could possibly put chasers at risk because we're not collecting land use resource data and we (should) stay on pubic rights of way. Slate doesn't do as much clickbait / fearmongering as most other outlets but this is an exception.

 

[joel ewing]

It absolutely CANNOT. If you read the law, it prevents the collection of resource data. You are assuming that means storm photos. But alas, they define resource data if you scroll down a bit:



Taking pictures of clouds is not related to land or land use.

My point Rob, is that a county LEO could use that law as a reason to make life miserable for someone if he wants to. If the local sentiments amongst LEOs are highly-charged-chaser-negative, what does he care if he loses is court? He's gotten what he wanted...which is to make a chaser sit in their jail over the weekend or at the very least bond out and force a chaser to return to court later.

 

[rdale]

Oh he cares a LOT. The false arrest penalties are quite severe. You can't throw someone in jail and then a few days later let them go and say "Ooops, we didn't understand the law" As a matter of fact - if you can find a cop in Wyoming willing to put people in jail for this, let me know where and I'll drive there and take the next few years off work with the payout.

Seriously - you can't arrest someone for trespassing in the first place. When a LEO arrives on scene, they tell you you're trespassing (whether you are or aren't) and you leave. If they were wrong and you leave, you're fine. If they were right and you leave, you're still fine. Trespassing is not an arresting offense. If they tell you to leave and you don't - well that's another story. But you can't be cuffed just because a cop wants you to sit in jail or bond out.

 

[joel ewing]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "we can't be arrested for trespassing in the first place". I'm not trying to nit-pic here, but that doesn't sound correct. ??

 

[Dan Robinson]

You can only get arrested for trespassing if the property is 1.) clearly marked and/or 2.) you are told by the landowner or law enforcement that you cannot be there, and you stay/come back. In most states/counties, highways and roads have easements that extend some distance from the pavement that permit use by the driving public and maintenance crews.

Sure, a rural cop may try to give someone a hard time who is legally stopped in a wide pull-off area (not just a shoulder), but if an arrest happens in that case, the chaser is going to have the law on their side when it goes to court. In most cases they're going to be within that easement.

I'm of the mind that if I'm arrested or detained unlawfully, I'm going to fight it in court. I won't let the threat of an overly aggressive police officer make me walk on eggshells about pulling over safely where I or any reasonable person clearly has a right to. Thankfully we live in the US, where we have the right to challenge/hold accountable the acts of wayward officers - who by the way, are as few and far between as wayward chasers.

 

[rdale]

And to add in - if you climb a barbed wire fence to get in, that's another story But if you cross into an area that isn't yours, and don't do it intentionally, you're fine leaving when they tell you to leave.

 

[joel ewing]

I have absolutely nothing to add to this conversation. I just thought I'd pad my "messages" stats a little, lol.