[r9etb]

Under what authority do you support your claim that a uniformed police officer is committing the crime of trespass when he goes onto the premises of a publicly owned building?

Mott was outside his jurisdiction. He had no official business inside the building. He improperly used his uniform to gain access to the classroom in order to perform a personal errand.

You doubtless understand also that "publicly-owned" is not synonymous with "I can go inside anytime I have a hankering to do so."

Case closed.

[Trace21230]

"Under what authority do you support your claim that a uniformed police officer is committing the crime of trespass when he goes onto the premises of a publicly owned building?
Mott was outside his jurisdiction. He had no official business inside the building. He improperly used his uniform to gain access to the classroom in order to perform a personal errand.

You doubtless understand also that "publicly-owned" is not synonymous with "I can go inside anytime I have a hankering to do so."

Case closed."

Again, if you have any authority to support your opinion, please show it to me.

Please refer to the first paragraph above if you forgot the question I asked you. Thanks.

Trace

[ValerieUSA]

You are taking this "outside his jurisdiction" thing way too seriously. It's not that big of a deal. Leaving his jurisdiction on break is not wrong. Often you will find city cops and sheriff's deputies assisting each other along with state troopers on a call. Have a fit about it - see where it gets you.

[longtermmemmory]

no case open, public schools are public. The school property often doubles as a park. The fact that he was let and no one disputes he clearly said he was on a break, negates the fact that he was permitted on the building. In fact if he tried, as a parent especially, to do this when students were there then he would not have been allowed because of disruption. You may feel unconfortable but his presence and enter were legally sound.