Whether trespassing on a military installation to express civic disapproval is justified by the protection of necessity
Question: Whether trespassing on a military installation to stage a demonstration is acceptable under the defense of necessity.
1. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1382 (West)
2. Importance: According to 18 U.S.C. 1382(West), anyone caught trespassing on a military base faces a fine, up to 6 months in jail, or both.
3. Technique: WLN GSB ALL> advanced: entry into military property and trespass on a military base> statutes> 1382
1. Legal and factual relevance: This case examines the violation of the 18 U.S.C.A. § 1382. It presents the use of a necessity defense in a trespass case similar to the central one in focus, presenting an apprehension and conviction of an individual who trespassed into a military base with the intention of destroying military property. The convicted individual intended to protest military warfare. He cites the necessity defense in his trial.
2. United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1985)
3. a. Issue: Whether the Defendant can rely on the defense of necessity in trespassing a military facility to protest warfare by destroying or spray-painting military and government property.
b. Facts: A US District Court found Walter Ward Dorrell III guilty of trespassing into a military base with the aim of destroying military property. In his defense, Dorrell cited defense of necessity, saying that he had witnesses and a video tape as evidence to show that nuclear war was a global threat. To avert the threat, he had intended to trespass into Vandenburg Air Force Base and destroy the MX Missile. He was arrested with several destructive items and tools that he intended to use in his mission.
c. Outcome: The necessity defense could not hold ground in the case as it was outweighed by the lack of substantial evidence to show the necessity of trespassing and destroying property.
d. Rationale: The court reasoned that the defense of necessity could not apply in instances of the law being disobeyed where individuals seek to fulfill their individual judgments upon the society. Acts that are otherwise seen as illegal should not be hidden under the defense of necessity. The court also noted that Dorrell had, in his appeal, abandoned the defense of necessity and brought in his individual beliefs of what was right or wrong.
4. Methodology: WLN GSB ALL> advanced: spray-painting military property> statutes> trespass and civic protest on military grounds> § 1382
Federal Case 2
1. Legal and factual relevance: This case is relevant as it cites necessity in actions performed by the defendant. The defendants were accused of trespassing military property. They also took part in a demonstration during the trespass, opposing operations by the Central Intelligence Agency just as in the issue presented in the case study.
2. Commonwealth v. Carter, 8745JC-0011A (Northampton Dist. Ct. Apr. 15, 1987)
3. a. Issue: Whether the defendants can successfully raise the defense of necessity to justify their intrusion into and demonstration on CIA property.
b. Facts: Amy Carter and 14 other protestors, in 1987, trespassed into CIA property, protesting against CIA operations. They sought to justify their actions when arrested and taken to court, citing that it was a necessary action that would help stop additional harm to people. The District Court in Northampton agreed to listen to evidence on crimes committed by the CIA.
c. Outcome: Defendants were acquitted after describing murders ad assassinations conducted by the CIA.
d. Rationale: Judge Richard Connon advised the jury to necessity defense as supported by the Massachusetts case law. The District Court found that, with the evidence of harmful and destructive actions performed by the CIA in Central America and other regions, the defendants' justification of trespassing the property was acceptable under the necessity defense.
4. Methodology: WLN GSB ALL> civic protest against crimes of war> statutes> Protesting war on military installation>CIA assassinations protest> § 1382
Federal Case 3
1. Legal and factual relevance: Case 3 can be related to the case in focus above in that individuals trespassed into a property associated with the military. They protested military operations by hanging pictures on walls and refusing to leave the premise. They relied on the necessity defense in their trial.
2. State v. Marley, 54 Hawaii 450, 509 P.2d 1095 (1973)
3. a. Issue: Whether protestors can justify their trespass and demonstration in militarized using the defense necessity.
b. Facts: In 1971, 8 protestors peacefully walked into the Honeywell Corporation's Honolulu office and accused the company of being involved in the Indochina War. The protestors mounted pictures on the office's walls and refused to leave. They were arrested and accused of trespass. In their initial and appeal cases, they called upon the necessity defense.
c. Outcome: The defendants were convicted and fined as their evidence was conflicting since the Honolulu office was only involved with computer business, and the relationship between the computers and Indochina War deaths could not be traced.
d. Rationale: The court found that the defendants were wrong in trespassing into Honolulu office, despite the fact that Honeywell was US' military contractor. The office the protestors positioned themselves in dealt with computer business and these machines were not found to cause harm in Indochina. The weapons used in the Indochina war could also not be traced back to Honeywell. Therefore, the defendants' acts of trespassing were not justifiable.
4. Methodology: WLN GSB KeyCite > Commonwealth v. Carter, United States v. Dorrell > statutes> Protesting war on military support > § 1382
Administrative Law
Federal agency: Department of Defense
Administrative rule: It is prohibited to enter or remain in a property not open to the public without consent or an invitation from an authorized individual. §234.4 - Trespassing (Administrative Law 435)
Methodology: WLN GSB > civic protests in military installations>regulations> reinforcing the law on military property > Department of Defense
Works cited
Administrative Law. The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America. US Government printing Office. 1998. Print
Commonwealth v. Carter, 8745JC-0011A. Northampton District Court. 1987. Westlaw
Hawaii State v. Marley, 54 Hawaii 450, 509 P.2d 1095. United States Court of Appeals. 1987. Westlaw
United States v. Dorrell. 758 F.2d 427. United States Court of Appeals. 1985. Westlaw.
