The Wyoming corner crossing case | Hacker News Reader

The Wyoming corner crossing case

themeateater.com

101 pointswlkr74 comments

This is fascinating :)

> North and South Dakota define section lines as a public right of way, which seems to allow corner crossing or at least access to landlocked public lands.

Here in Illinois, my rear property line is a section line, and a neighbor down the street has the intersection of that section line with another; interestingly it is not on his property line (this is land that was sold by the federal government in 40 acre square quarters of a quarter, but farmers had subdivided and consolidated things over the years). But anyway, in his yard is a stone survey marker showing the intersection point, and it has "ROW" engraved on it. It lends credence to this concept being common historically.

That checkerboard pattern is very visible on satellite imagery of western Oregon, where forest management changes between the public and private lots:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/...

I wonder if some/most/all of that checkerboard is caused by the lumber harvesters deciding to harvest only half the checkerboard squares at one time, then wait some number of years before harvesting the other half. This wouldn't significantly reduce the harvest over a long enough time horizon, and it would ensure there's always some forest available for animals to live in.

The checkerboard looks too obvious to me to be just due to ownership.

No, the actual ownership structure does the same thing - every other square in those checkerboards is BLM land.

They did that along the Canadian Pacific Railway as well when they acquired land to connect the coasts.

Basically the railway owned every other section and private individuals could purchase those in between.

Wow, I'm surprised. Here's a map[1]. Am I right that the reason is for making sure wildlife has some available area to live?

https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htm...

I'm really surprised that this hasn't been settled. It seems unjust that you can surround a piece of public land--or someone else's land--with your private land and deny access to it.

I remember Disney was successfully sued to allow access for the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek resort because Disney owned all the land that would provide access to it and didn't want to allow it.

Access rules vary by state. I know in Washington, there's the concept of a 'way of necessity', where if you own (or are entitled to beneficial use of) land that is inaccessible, you are allowed to cross the land of others (the statute language says you're allowed to condemn and take the land, but I think you might only get an easement?). This is separate from what Washington calls an implied easement when a parcel was split, and access continues to one of the resulting parcels was through the other and this is allowed to continue although there was no written easement.

Looks like Wyoming has something similar [1], although I don't know if "any person whose land has no outlet to..." could include federal lands, as the federal government isn't always considered a person. Anyway, that seems to require the owner to initiate a process to obtain access, and I'm guessing whichever federal agency controls this land isn't that interested in access.

[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2010/Title24/chapter9.h...

You can even purchase the land, while promising to maintain a public right of access, and then close the right of access indefinitely "for safety", etc

>You can even purchase the land, while promising to maintain a public right of access, and then close the right of access indefinitely "for safety", etc

The public is reaping what it has sowed. This is only possible because for decades a huge chunk of the public has treated the pursuit of safety or "the children" or any other "you're evil if you criticize anyone who purports to stand for this" type of subject as something that is more important than all other interests.

Despite how any of us want things to be, this was the printed statement from Wyoming BLM. [1] Presumably, these hunters already knew this.

  What does the law say with regard to corner crossing?

  There is no specific state or federal
  laws regarding corner crossings. Corner
  crossings in the checkerboard land pattern
  area or elsewhere are not considered legal
  public access.

[1] https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Prog...

Previously discussed (last week): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467

Thanks! Macroexpanded:

A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 - Nov 2022 (181 comments)

Id like to know why specifically the officers changed their mind the third time.

I can easily take a guess for the reason though.

In Wyoming, it’s not criminal trespass unless you have been notified by the property owner or law enforcement. So perhaps one of the first two encounters included such notification.

https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSO...

The article doesn't say that the ticketing officer was in the other two groups of officers. So, it's not clear that your assumption is correct.

  First, the local game warden arrived with *two sheriff's deputies.*
  ... 
  The next day, a *sheriff’s deputy* arrived...
  ...
  Finally, *a third law enforcement officer* arrived with direct
  orders to ticket the hunters, not for hunting without
  permission, but for criminal trespass.

> The federal government regulates airspace 500 feet and above the land surface, leaving the states to decide what happens below. Wyoming statute 10-4-302 states that ownership of the space above private land is vested in the owners below, subject to the right of flight.

So if you have a FAA-approved helicopter/giant drone/equivalent and comply with their regulations, you can legally hop from one checkerboard to another, as long as each hop goes above 500 feet? (Assuming that national park regulations allow you to land on the ground with your aircraft, which is sadly probably not the case.)

If you keep reading, you can go as low as you want as long as it doesn't interfere with the use of the land. 500 ft is just the thresh-hold for where the FAA will take an interest.

Yes, and this is one of the more clear cut yeses!

De minimis non curat lex - the law does not deal in trifles. Unless a multi-millionaire pharmaceutical businessman wants to make life difficult for someone, apparently.

It's silly to see the law chewing up so much time and talent for a prosecution so at odds with the public interest.

Given that this comes down to badly-worded laws that allow for a lot of interpretation, essentially would double the land-owner's exclusively-usable land if corner-cutting was forbidden, and there is apparently no precedence set, this is not a de-minimis-case.

Fair, but my point was that it /should/ be. That the justice system is content to chew thru thousand of man hours (police, lawyers, prosecution, court officials, etc) instead of just laughing is indicative of the administrative bloat that prevades our institutions.

If I were a WY legislator, I'd propose an implied 5ft public access easement on all such crossings.

The law absolutely deals in trifles. Go brazenly steal a stick of gum from Walmart, and see what happens.

From https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/de-minimis-non-c...

"The de minimis rule is seldom relevant in criminal law (so, for, example, the offence of theft is made out whether the property taken is worth one penny or £1 million) but it is not wholly irrelevant. For example, a shopkeeper who hangs a rack of newspapers on the outer wall of his shop abutting the highway may be acquitted of obstruction of the highway on the basis of de minimis non curat lex."

In SF, nothing.

Friend of mine got hauled in front of a judge for eating a malt ball in a grocery store.

Judge fined him 10 cents.

Why don't the land owners just put up a fence if they are so worried? Doesn't need to go the whole length, just like 1 or 2 meters at the corners, then there is no argument about if someone's shoulders went on your land or not.

This is so obviously a place where existing laws around easements should apply that it's laughable that it's made it this far. Someone can't block your access to your house by buying up your neighbors properties.

completely agree. the answer here is so stupidly obvious, that it shouldn't even need a trial.

even if some public land was fully blocked in by private land, the public still has every right to access that land. If that means moving through private land to get to it, so be it. If the owner dont like it, they can sell and buy some other land that is less public-adjacent.

One solution would be to exercise eminent domain. The state or federal government claims a couple square feet of land wherever one of these corner crossings exist so that there's enough space for a footpath. For each of these, the landowner is sent a check for the fair market value of the land, which in most cases is probably about a dollar or so. Problem solved.

If there's too much paperwork involved in eminent-domaining every one of these, you could have a system where members of the public can request corner access, and some agency can invoke eminent domain in priority order based on the number of requests for each corner.

What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel?

Private owners are generally expected to understand and establish easements.

I'm generally in favor of something like a right to roam, though I expect (many) people would ignore the part where they should be respectful of the land they are crossing.

> What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel?

Shouldn't anyone buying a landlocked parcel get an easement?

What happens if anyone buys a surrounded parcel? Generally there is a way to get an easement across private land to access other land. Maybe the legislature could help, and force an automatic easement process across any land where the owner doesn't want people crossing without permission.

Moreover, why doesn't the concept of an easement apply to these corners?

> This is so obviously a place where existing laws around easements should apply that it's laughable that it's made it this far. Someone can't block your access to your house by buying up your neighbors properties.

Despite such a view of the law on easements, there may not be any conservation easements.

There are 8.3 million inaccessible acres of public land in Wyoming. [1]

HB0103 would tweak that legal gray space the defendant’s attorney is using and clearly change how trespassing is defined when it comes to corner crossing. Specifically, the bill would amend the definition of hunter trespass that currently states that “no person shall enter upon” private property, according to WyoFile. [2]

[1] https://www.wyomingnews.com/wyomingbusinessreport/industry_n...

[2] https://www.gohunt.com/content/news/new-bill-broadens-corner...

Rather awkwardly (for your point) this isn't an issue of "them" blocking your access to your property, it's instances of "them" denying your crossing of "their property" and incidentally blocking your access to land you don't own.

FWiW I'm on the side of freedom to roam and implicit RoW (Right of Way) access to public land .. but it's not that clearcut in various US states.

> land you don't own.

Arguably public land is land that belongs to all of us, collectively. It is only land you "don't own" in the sense of land that you don't privately have exclusive title to.

I'm Australian, does US public land also belon to me?

Does US law garantee the right for any member of the US public to walk, spoil, graze cattle, etc. on any undeeded land?

If so, does that law also grant the right of access across land owned by others?

The very reason that these corner cases are unresolved is because there is no clear answer here (yet).

It's actually pretty settled that you can walk on and hunt on this land. Yes, that includes Australian citizens here legally under one of many frameworks. The question is entirely if it's trespassing to cross into it.

The question is actually pretty limited to: is it trespassing for part of your body to pass over a corner of private land?

Just for the record I think its ridiculous, and I would love to see the legislature pass a law allowing people the right to cross the most direct route across private property that is blocking access to public property. I wish for once that the rich and powerful would get something like this to backfire.

> incidentally blocking your access to land you don't own.

No one's talking about someone blocking my access to someone else's private property.

We're talking about someone blocking access to another, corner-adjacent parcel of my land.

Also your land, if you're a US citizen. That's land we do own.

Why don't private landowners firmly set two tall metal poles, covered with razor wire, 2 inches from the corner?

I support public right of way, but it seems a landowner who wants to de facto seize the public land could do that.

In this case there was a metal “No Trespassing” sign at the corner. The hunters used a stepladder to climb over it, such that both ends of the ladder were on public land. The prosecution claims that they still violated the private landowners’ air rights in the process.

Certainly. If instead they had 20' tall poles covered in spikes (with a gap of 2" in between so as not to impinge on public property) that would not be a question. I am glad that that is not happening!

This is basically the same issue as public access to California beaches, where wealthy landowners attempt to block public access to the commons and turn it into private property.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...

Kind of, except:

- with beaches, you get to the beach, and that's it. Unless you bring a boat. With corner crossing, suddenly thousands of acres of vast land are available to you.

- with corner crossing, you're talking about specifically corners - which is a cool little... "corner case", if you will. Just something that resonates with me technologically.

- there's some considerations of "floating above ground" and "how low above ground are you allowed to fly". Like, could you float two meters above someone's private ground legally, without criminal trespassing? That has important answers with regards to stuff like drones etc coming onto your private land. And what about something like, say, ziplines? Could you have a horizon zero dawn style zipline in a corner that's just high enough for you to get to the other side of the corner?

>you get to the beach, and that's it.

Some people find being on beaches very enjoyable in themselves, and don't find it a problem that the beach can't be used as a path to get somewhere else.

yes but you are focusing on details of "how" powerful private individuals encircle the commons, rather than the _pattern_ of the powerful encircling the commons.

> Like, could you float two meters above someone's private ground legally, without criminal trespassing? …drones coming onto your private land…

Yes, because this is navigable airspace (by drones), making it part of the National Airspace System. Federal judges have struck down laws by municipalities trying to draw a line in the air where private property extends, saying that organizing any and all airspace is strictly an FAA power.

> how low above ground are you allowed to fly

1000 ft in populated areas, 500 ft in rural areas

500 ft in rural areas that still have buildings and structures of some sort, but FAA regs for private pilots state,"may fly at less than 500 feet when over “sparsely populated areas,” as long as the aircraft is not operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vehicle, or structure." Many parts of Wyoming would be considered to be "sparsely populated".

Check out 14 CFR 91.119 [1]. Over sparsely populated areas, there is no specific minimum altitude requirement—only that you need enough altitude to safely land following engine failure.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

That doesn't apply to helicopters, though.

that's not what the article is talking about - read it for more context

Yes. The Zonker Harris Beach Access in Malibu has been "closed for repairs" since 2016.

Sorta, but reverse the outcomes.

Most public beaches in CA have public access now.

In WY (and many western but not coastal states) it looks like the landowners will win. They can afford lengthy civil suits, enough to scare most people off. They can also afford to have laws written in their favor by the legislature.

Sounds like the core question is if „hovering“ any body part over private land is considered trespassing?

As obviously (on flat land without obstacles) one can step from one square into the diagonal square without setting foot on either the adjacent squares.

In some countries, it's not a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

The US state of Vermont actually has a constitutional right to hunt on open, private lands. This dates from the original state constitution.

If you don't want people hunting in your woods, you have several options. The simplest is to post an exclusion zone around your dwelling. But posting an entire large woodlot with "No Hunting" signs is a deliberately awful process. The signs must surround the entire boundary, and they must have a recent date. They must also be registered with the town.

https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/landowner-resources...

In practice, it's very rare for people to post large woods.

Compared to Wyoming, there are no large woods in Vermont.

I feel profound sadness that there is no legal equivalent in the US. What a beautiful, humane concept.

The endless signs about trespassing in wild parts of the USA are pretty grim. I understand why they do it, but it feels so adversarial and ugly.

As I went walking I saw a sign there,

And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."

But on the other side it didn't say nothing.

That side was made for you and me.

https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm

For some reason, that stanza gets left out of the all modern performances I've heard.

That's because it's not in the Guthrie version, only the Mojo Nixon version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSNjVogUV1E

This version, apparently by Guthrie, has it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s

Perhaps you would like to put this feeling into action and talk to your representative about changing the law.

That pharma guy is an unbelievable douchebag. Investing his own, his crew's and the cops time (they have nothing better to do?) into ... what exactly?

Effectively doubling his exclusive use of land ... it's something worth investing some money to.

> The legality of stepping from one public parcel to another across a shared corner is still a legal gray area

Idiotic. Profoundly stupid.

Why are these public land parcels in a checkerboard anyway? Doesn't it make way more sense to have continuous pieces of land for administration / etc?

Its covered extensively in the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com