For some, the call of the forgotten past is just worth the risk.įor more information on urban exploration, trespassing and the full range of related risks, check out the links on the next page.Īuthor's Note: Is it legal to explore abandoned buildings? Seasoned urban explorers typically know this, and they go in anyway. The fact is, in most cases, entering a structure without explicit or perceived permission, even if that structure is abandoned, is considered trespassing, and people caught doing so can face penalties ranging from community service and fines to significant jail time. This is not something to count on, though. A judge found that the protesters couldn't be trespassing because the building was abandoned, and she dismissed the case. In a trespassing case in Seattle in 2012 - a case involving that early-1900s, vacant, graffitied warehouse and 16 "Occupy" protesters - the defense succeeded. The defense is far from a guaranteed "not guilty," but a judge or jury can consider it when determining whether or not trespassing has occurred (and, if it has, what the penalty should be). This basically means that a person entering that vacant warehouse without permission, knowing he or she shouldn't be there, might not in fact be guilty of trespassing if the claim can be made that the warehouse was abandoned and the prosecution can't prove otherwise. Knowledge or the lack thereof is a tricky thing to prove.Īlso in the explorer's favor is this confusing twist: Even in the case of such knowledge, and even when the statute does not set forth abandonment as an exception to the rule, a trespassing statute may (and often does) explicitly allow abandonment to be used as a defense. First, the violation hinges on his or her knowledge that the building was off-limits, which the prosecution must prove in court.
On the other hand, some parts of the typical trespassing statute can work for the potential trespasser. It is, in reality, a rare abandoned building that has not a single interested authority. In the absence of a private owner, or if that owner does not abide by abandonment requirements, a structure may fall into the hands of the government as caretaker. That owner may even be paying monthly abandonment fees to the government.
From a legal standpoint, abandonment is determined by specific time periods of vacancy, by levels of upkeep and even by an owner's long-term intentions regarding the property.Īnd then, even if a building meets the legal requirements for abandonment, there can still be an owner. For instance, just because a building looks abandoned doesn't mean the law sees it as such. In the absence of such obvious signs, however, some complications arise that can muddy the waters.
0 kommentar(er)
