Trespassing, justified or not?

[aniMal]

For close to 2 years now, I have been working on a project on ruins and lost places. It all started in an amazing area in Spain, Aragon. On a winter holiday we happened upon some of the most picturesque derelict lost villages that I have seen, and somehow I felt that I just had to carry this project to an end.

Since then I have been very careful in always finding some place like this when we have been on holidays and trips, and I feel that I will continue for quite a while.

The problem is often getting access of course. The ruins in Aragon had signs saying the inside of buildings is off limits, of course sensible as they are not safe. On the other hand, it was just impossible not having a peek in of course!

As I am not taking anything along, and not destroying anything, I have not had any real qualms about it. And I am quite sure that if I had met any of the guards (in Spain they actually inspect these places regularly), they would not have done more than chasing us - or perhaps give us a fine at the most.

This summer, though, I got into a dilemma... I had applied for, and gotten permit to photograph at Beelitz Heilstätten outside of Berlin - which has been used for several films and so on. My german is not the best, but I was still quite annoyed when I realized that all of the buildings were boarded up very thoroughly... This was not what I planned for, and I was not very happy taking a detour on the way to Budapest for a few outdoor shots...

I then realized that if I had had the time for it, and a ladder, I would definitely have slipped in somwhere at the second floor - and there were several open windows. But I did not really have the time for it, if I should happen to be apprehended 😉

Now these thoughts are repeating themselves, as I have just learnt that there is a haunting ruin 30 minutes of travel from Oslo, where I live. It is a legendary psychiatric hospital, where they used to do electro-shock therapy and actually some LSD-research in collaboration with CIA in the early seventies... Now all this is boarded up, and I have seen some really haunting images on flickr from the inside...

I will be going there sometime this week to do some initial reconnaisance, and I am lucky to have the time to do this one properly as it is practically next door!

The philosophical question is finally coming throough; what are the justifications and/or ramifications of trespassingon places like these?

The way I feel it, is that as long as I am working on a project, and not endangering anybody or destroying anything, then it is not really a crime... If caught, I think I would argue that I am doing something constructive, and that I will not be held in the same category as someone who breaks in an thrashes the whole place...

This is for the most part government property, and the chances that these places will be re-built are very slim indeed. It would have been totally different if somebody lived there, or if the chances of breaking something were great.

What do you think? Are there degrees of trespassing, and are there artistic or moral incitements?

 

[MarkoKovacevic]

Check out UER.ca for tons of info on this type of stuff. I'd say, go for it, but don't have any weapons/tools on you in case you get caught. If they see that you're just a photographer, they'll let you off 99% of the time.

Have fun! Bring a tripod and a wide.

 

[FrozenInTime]

You are not alone in your interests : have a read of some of the forum posts of explorations of abandoned buildings and facilities ( some sanctioned ... others not ).

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/

 

[aniMal]

Yes - seems like it is a fad... It is a style of photography that I would never have gotten into some years ago, but in a strange way I feel very peaceful at these places!

I never bring any weapons anywhere, this is Norway after all. I didńt think about leaving out tools thought - probably a good idea!

What I think will be working for the hospital close by, is a telescopic step-ladder. I am sure some window will be open at the second floor, if not I will be tempted to help a little... Of course making sure that I leave it the way it was!

I really do love using flick for finding these places, then going back and shoot it without HDR! Also I find 6X7 slide a good thing, the colours get sooo much more natural...

 

[250swb]

Go for it. In the UK 'trespassing' is only an offence if somebody (like the landowner) has warned you that you shouldn't do it. Otherwise there is a big following for 'Ubex' (Urban Exploration) photography, which is one of the things photographers are doing to record architecture and social relics before they are bulldozed. Often it is within 'Keep Out' signs and fences, but if not recorded a whole raft of social commentary and document is going to be lost. So wherever you are in Europe do it, when its gone its gone for ever, and historical mistakes and treasures are going to be destroyed in equal measure with no record of their passing.Steve

 

[david.elliott]

Trespassing is illegal. Don't do it.

 

[aniMal]

That is the way I feel too - these places ought to be documented, at the least! When I returned to the ruins in Aragon after 8 months, I could clearly see that some of the paintings in the church had deteriorated, new pieces missing...

Also some ruins in Hungary have been interesting, in one of the old soviet barracks I found part of the book-keeping from when they packed up and left.

Not doing things just because there is a law - well, then I would not have had half the fun I have had over the years 😉 On the other hand I always tend to think it through before breaking laws - of course most of them are there for a purpose.

But in this case I clearly feel that I am justified in taking my chances, and that the world is a better place for it!

 

[aniMal]

FrozenInTime - thanks for the link, great stuff!

28 days later is one of the greatest films for haunting locations really... Quite apart from the horror side of it, it really conveys some very intense feelings of being lost - guess I have to see it once more now!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Where in Aragon? I've shot in a couple of abandoned villages and am buying some bridging ladders so I can get to more in my old Land Rover (they're often a long drive off the road, followed by a more or less long walk). I've also shot abandoned spas in France, an abandoned hotel in Malta, and lots more.

Certainly in the UK trespassing is NOT a crime except on certain military and kindred sites: it's a tort, otherwise known as a civil trespass, for which the remedy is civil proceedings. No-one is likely to bother to sue, and besides, they normally have to show actual loss or damage. I believe this to be the case in many other countries too, but Googling 'civil trespass' and 'criminal trespass' in your country may help.

A great deal depends on how authoritarian the country in question may be, and how authoritarian the police are (not always the same thing), but normally, as noted elsewhere, the worst that happens in non-paranoid countries is that you are asked to leave, in the unlikely event that you are caught.

Weapons and tools? Well, I always carry a Swiss Army knife and a Leatherman and for outside exploration I sometimes carry a machete as well for cutting away undergrowth. A while back in Aragon I was very grateful I had the machete with me because there was one house still inhabited some 500m from the abandoned village and the owners' dogs were quite fierce and proprietorial. Something between half and hree-quarters of a metre of sharp steel on a lanyard on your wrist makes it a lot easier to radiate confidence and a general air of, "Okay, let's see who walks away from this..." (I never saw the owner).

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd be happy with a folding ladder. Or that the police would be, again, in the unlikely event that they saw it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aniMal]

Hehe - I would think that a machete looks more suspicious than a ladder... But perhaps you are right - I will think it through.

I guess it is a civil matter here in Norway too, anyway the police would never even consider doing anything, they are too strained and overworked.

I suppose mace or something like it could be an idea with dogs. I have had a couple of very unpleasant encounters with dogs in Kathmandu, and should perhaps prepare for the worst.

We spent some time around Graus in Aragon, if you want to have the exact locations I could send you a PM. One of them is just so wonderful, and dangerous when entering, that I do not feel like posting on it in the open. If you happen to be in the area some time later, you really have to see it!

 

[Chris101]

Trespassing is illegal. Don't do it.

I (mostly) agree here. It is an illegal act (I cannot imagine that people in England would allow someone to enter their house, uninvited. Walking through their land is something different under English law.) In America, one's private property is just that. You may only legally enter it if invited.

So my statement goes like this: Trespassing is illegal. Don't get caught doing it.

 

[mackigator]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alterallensteiner/

I like his stuff.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I'm with Chis. By the way, if you are pinched are you going to say, "the blokes at RFF said I should go for it?" Don't break the law: seems pretty simple.

Ben Marks

 

[Roger Hicks]

I (mostly) agree here. It is an illegal act (I cannot imagine that people in England would allow someone to enter their house, uninvited. Walking through their land is something different under English law.) In America, one's private property is just that. You may only legally enter it if invited.

So my statement goes like this: Trespassing is illegal. Don't get caught doing it.

There's a difference between criminal liability and civil liability, which non-lawyers commonly fail to appreciate. 'Illegal' normally refers to something against the criminal law, not to something giving rise to cause for civil action.

Walking into an abandoned and unoccupied building is much like walking through land (occupied or not). There may be criminal offences involved in gaining entry to property (occupied or unoccupied), especially forcibly, but they normally involve the mens rea (wrongful intention) of intending to steal or commit other crimes as well as the actus reus (wrongful act) of merely being there. This is why burglars commonly (and normally unsuccessfully) try the defence of "I was just looking around" -- in the USA as well as elsewhere.

As I said earlier, who is going to sue? (And why?) In England and, I believe, many other jurisdictions, they'll have to sue because it's simply not a criminal offence.

There is no substitute for further (easy) legal research on this, and you must always allow for the possibility that the police may have an imperfect understanding of the law, but really, to say 'it is an illegal act' does not advance the argument very much.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Deserted seldom visited buildings aren't a place to be visiting by yourself. Have a heart attack and it could be weeks before anyone finds you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Deserted seldom visited buildings aren't a place to be visiting by yourself. Have a heart attack and it could be weeks before anyone finds you.

Or indeed fall through a floor, break a leg, and get stuck. But the mobile 'phone is your friend, and it's a good idea either to have someone with you (Frances and I commonly do this together) or at least to let someone know where you're going and that you will check back with them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aniMal]

Yes - I will actually say that this is a project in photography, and that it is a common phenomenon these days. It never harms having a reason for what you do, and it would show that I have no ill intent.

Many a time have I gotten away with small offenses because I had a good reason for it - and explained it. Once got locked out on the terrace of the youth hostel in Dublin, had to jump the fence to get out from the backyard. Of course someone saw it, and alerted two officers close by... Things like that of course look very suspicious, but are in the end totally harmless.

Anyway, I know that the police would never even consider going there if someone reported it, they are really overstretched these days. It is quite bad, as a main rule they can only make it when somebody are actually hurt.

Just got some knowledge that this particular place is a known thing for people in the area, it is a popular target for people looking for ghosts 😉

 

[aniMal]

Hmm... Having a heart attack while alone? I never got the concept of that, here in Norway it is quite common to go on long hikes alone - and often without coverage on the mobile... I would not be too concerned - I doubt I could frighten myself so much that this place would be different than any other.

When it comes to entering buildings though, I prefer to be very cautious. This place is 100% safe, having been abandoned for no more than 20 years - and intact roof and windows.

 

[Chris101]

There's a difference between criminal liability and civil liability, which non-lawyers commonly fail to appreciate. 'Illegal' normally refers to something against the criminal law, not to something giving rise to cause for civil action.

Walking into an abandoned and unoccupied building is much like walking through land (occupied or not). There may be criminal offences involved in gaining entry to property (occupied or unoccupied), especially forcibly, but they normally involve the mens rea (wrongful intention) of intending to steal or commit other crimes as well as the actus reus (wrongful act) of merely being there. This is why burglars commonly (and normally unsuccessfully) try the defence of "I was just looking around" -- in the USA as well as elsewhere.

As I said earlier, who is going to sue? (And why?) In England and, I believe, many other jurisdictions, they'll have to sue because it's simply not a criminal offence.

There is no substitute for further (easy) legal research on this, and you must always allow for the possibility that the police may have an imperfect understanding of the law, but really, to say 'it is an illegal act' does not advance the argument very much.

Cheers,

R.

Trespassing in America is a matter of state law, and so is interpreted in 50 (or more) different ways. Entering buildings marked as private and that trespassing will be prosecuted will certainly be treated as criminal in most states. Especially if any damage or forced entry is in evidence.

 

[aniMal]

One thing is for sure - I would be very cautious in USA as an example, and equally in other countries. Also there is a difference between private property and state property, the former belongs to someone in particular - and is often more fiercely guarded. But derelict places that are state or municipality property?

That is something different I feel - and in a way I have more right to explore as I pay my taxes and so on... Setting the strict legal aspects aside, what is the moral right here? Or the artistic? Is there not a difference philosophically speaking, after all the laws are just common agreements to regulate - so that less people gets hurt, and that society is just and peaceful.

But of course, the state itself sometimes seems to be a huge Moloch with a will of itself... And surely its layers will see to it that it defends itself! This is more along the lines I am asking myself - how justified will I be if exploring a place like that in a slightly offensive manner? 🙂