IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR _____________ COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF IOWA, case number
Plaintiff,
v. RULING
______________________,
Defendant
Trial commenced on _________. _________appeared on behalf of the State of Iowa and _________ appeared on behalf of the Defendant, ___________. _____ was charged with Interference with Official Acts and Trespassing, 1st offense.
Findings of Fact:
On Sep_____________, law enforcement responded to a call that an individual may be in/around the _________ auto dealership. When law enforcement responded to the call, they found Defendant, _______ sleeping by a trailer near an out building behind the car dealership. Law enforcement attempted to identify the defendant. After Mr. ______was fully able to be alert as to his surroundings, he eventually identified himself with his full name. Law enforcement “ran” __________ name through dispatch to verify whether there were any outstanding warrants, or if there was any criminal history. Dispatch reported to law enforcement that there were no warrants and no indications of criminal history.
At this point law enforcement asked for Mr. ____ date of birth (DOB) and social security number (SSN). Mr. ____ refused due his understanding that he had an obligation to identify himself, which he already done. Mr. ____ believed he was being harassed due to the fact that he had already identified himself, and he reported a history of being questioned by law enforcement. (The court notes that Mr. ____ is homeless or as he prefers to say “he lives outside”, and he rests where he can find a peaceful place to sleep at night unbothered). Due to fact that he often sleeps out in public, he is often questioned.
The facts are clear that at no point did law enforcement ask Mr. _____ to leave the premises at __________. Mr. _____testified that if law enforcement had simply asked him to leave that site he would have done so. There is no evidence that any employees with ___________ asked Mr. _______ to leave the premises. There were no signs at the location that stated “no trespassing”. Mr. _______ had never previously been asked not to come to this location. In fact, Mr. ______ testified that this was his first night in the city of _______ There is no evidence that Mr. ____ came upon the premises with the intent to commit a crime. There is no evidence that Mr. _____ damaged or removed anything on the property. Simply put, there is no evidence of criminal intent by the Defendant.
Mr. ____identified himself as he was obliged to. He did not give a false or misleading name. He did not lie to law enforcement. He did not run from the police. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. ____ physically resisted law enforcement. Law enforcement did not inform the Defendant that he was under arrest until he was already placed in the police car. Law enforcement testified that it was only a couple of minutes between the time of the request for SSN and DOB and the placement of Mr. ____ in the police car.
If law enforcement had asked Mr. _____to leave the location and he refused to leave, the Court would have found Mr. _____ guilty of both offenses. However, that is not the factual scenario presented to the court.
Ruling:
Without getting into a commentary on how this matter was handled, the Court finds that the State has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the elements of the offenses charged. The Defendant is acquitted of Interference with Official Acts and Tresspassing,1st Offense. Costs are assessed to the Plaintiff.
apnews.com
