Posted on 09/20/2007 4:29:27 PM PDT by decimon
BARROW COUNTY, Ga. -- A Barrow County woman says an off-duty deputy handcuffed and had her strip-searched because of a simple dispute over a power line.
“My life has never been the same since. I’m having a very hard time with it,” said Sue Worley.
A farm in Hoschton in Barrow County has been home to 60-year-old Worley all her life.
Late last year, a letter from the Georgia Transmission Corporation told her a 230 Kilovolt power line was going to go through her property. When surveyors showed up, Worley said she went down the road to talk. She said she didn’t threaten anyone, but the Barrow County deputy working with the surveyors didn’t see it that way -- the deputy called for backup.
“I saw two sheriff’s cars drive up,” said Worley. She was handcuffed, arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
“I was in the car and I went all the way to the jail handcuffed,” she said. Worley was booked into the jail, patted down and strip searched.
“She sprayed me down with lice spray. It was so humiliating,” Worley said. “They made a criminal out of me.”
The charges were dropped, but Worley and her lawyer are suing the Georgia Transmission Company.
“It’s just pure, old-fashioned intimidation. They want people’s land and they don’t want to pay for it,” said Worley's lawyer, Don Evans. “They’re going to set their power poles wherever they want and if anybody gives them any lip, they’ll put you in jail.”
She and her lawyer said they’re suing, not just for her, but for other Georgians facing the threat of eminent domain and what they see as loss of property rights.
“I just don’t see how this could happen in a land of freedom, but we don’t have freedom anymore because people can just do anything they want to,” said Worley.
Project H.O.P.E. -- Homeowners Opposing Power Line Encroachment -- said Worley's case shows the need for the governor and legislature to draw stronger citizen-friendly laws to prevent what it calls, "preferential treatment," for power companies.
A spokesperson for the Georgia Transmission Corporation told Channel 2 they had hired a deputy because they'd had some subtle threats from other residents in the area.
Right now, it looks like the power line will go up either late next year or in early 2009.
We’ve all had a bad day.....if any of us were perfect, we’d have been in the news for being able walk on water.
Years ago a person use to be able vent their frustartions verbally not any more!
I don’t say that conduct is good but it never warrent a person to get arrested, let alone stripped and bug sprayed.
If you noticed another thing our laws are changing or the precept of the Laws is changing from innocent until proven guilty.
Now it seems in some cases not this episode you are guilty until proven innocent!
Pay attention it is very subtle
Back to Worley maybe arrested but stripped and spray that is a bit much.
During our time on Fleeman Road Nellie Sue Worley approached the crew and I several times. Ms. Worley
repeatedly was told to leave and she proceeded to act disorderly and repeatedly returned.
Ms. Worley was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct. Deputy Walker transported Ms. Worley to the
Barrow County Detention Center.
Was she told to leave her property?
When they disorderly what did she do? it is so vague nothing specific you are to fill in the blanks!
As of now it was he said she said and power moved by surveying crew, maybe she was asking questions and they got fresh with her?
I don’t know but it is not the America I grew up in!
Check this encounter with the police
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
When they [charged her with ] disorderly [conduct] what did she do? it is so vague nothing specific you are to fill in the blanks!
Exactly. For this charge, the law also states "without provocation."
If someone comes onto your property without your permission, you have a right to demand THEY leave your own property.
What's going on here is a presumption that the land owner has no right to talk to, inquire, or yell at trespassers on their own property. It seems the law in this regard, is also changing from the presumption that a trespasser is in the wrong to the property owner being in the wrong.
I quickly searched for recent Georgia court orders pertaining to public utility companies, eminent domain, and rights of landowners re trespass...I did find one case, and thought it was interesting.
This excerpt from the following ruling is on a different matter (it refers to bankruptcy previously filed, and its effect on current charges of trespass made by a landowner against a utility company, both tangible (i.e., physical) and intangible (i.e., light waves from fiber optics); some of the arguments made, however, imho, can be applied to this case.
Apparently, according to Georgia law, a landowner MUST try to stop a utility company before they start erecting their equipment; doing nothing would allow the courts to make the assumption that you approve. This woman would need to file court papers stating that she wants this process to go through "condemnation" of her property so she can be financially compensated for the "takings" of her land. At least, that is how I read the judges' opinions in this case.
the Debtor [the utility company which previously filed bankruptcy, but continues to maintain a fiber optic cable on the property owner's land] argues that even if West [the private property landowner] could prevail on his trespass claim, Georgia’s eminent domain law would permit the Debtor to take West’s property upon the payment of just compensation. The Debtor argues that the compensation West would receive for a trespass claim would be precisely the same compensation under eminent domain. However, the Debtor also maintains that because West did not file a proof of claim, he has knowingly waived his right to seek compensation. Thus, West cannot assert a claim for unconstitutional taking based upon a lack of compensation.* * *
Under Georgia law “[t]respass means any misfeasance, transgression, or offense which damages another’s health, reputation, or property.” GA. CODE ANN. § 1-3-3(20) (2004). A cause of action for trespass to real estate is, “[t]he right of enjoyment of private property being an absolute right of every citizen, every act of another which unlawfully interferes with such enjoyment is a tort for which an action shall lie.” GA. CODE ANN. § 51-9-1 (2004).
* * *
...trespass by a public utility involves a countervailing policy consideration – specifically, the competing need of the public - for the benefit provided by the public utility versus the right of a property owner to control the use of his property. States seem to address these conflicting policies by means of a condemnation process in which a property owner receives fair consideration for the use of the property while the public benefits from the utility’s continued use ofthe property. In essence, a balance is struck between the needs of the public and the rights of a property owner. Here, the Debtor is a utility company that provides the public service of telecommunications. The Debtor’s status as a utility company allows it to condemn a landowner’s property for public use. (8) Of course, any condemnation of land for public use would require the Debtor to provide just compensation to the landowner. See Ga. Const., Art. I, § III, Para. 1. Under Georgia law, however, as will be discussed herein, only monetary damages can be awarded for the condemnation of land for public use, and an equitable remedy, such as an injunction, is not available. See GA . CODE ANN. § 46-5-1 (2004).
As stated previously, while other states make a distinction between tangible and intangible trespass, Georgia does not appear to articulate such a distinction. The Court believes that the prevailing view in Georgia regarding claims of trespass is Jordan v. Georgia Power Co., 219 Ga. App. 690 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). Under Georgia law, it appears that a physical invasion onto property constitutes a trespass without injury. [page 25]
On page 29, there is more detail about the Fifth Amendment and eminent domain:
The Georgia Court has repeatedly held that The owner of a fee of a highway who permits an electric power company to construct its line along the highway, without bringing an action to prevent it until after the public service has begun, will be granted damages only for the invasion of his rights, and cannot require removal of the line. Gurnsey v. Northern Ca. Power Co., 160 Cal. 699 (Cal. 1911). This is a reasonable rule, and sound in principle. It does not proceed in the interest of the company unlawfully appropriating the land, nor on the ordinary theory of estoppel as where a landowner stands by and without warning sees another in good faith place expensive improvements on the premises. A public utility company, having the right of eminent domain, that knowingly takes land without lawful method for its corporate purposes, could hardly be said to be acting in good faith; and it is difficult to find estoppel working against the owner in favor of the company under such circumstances. The operation of the rule has for its basis more than ordinary estoppel. It works for the good of the public.A public utility company has the right to acquire land necessary for its corporate purpose. Such may be acquired by purchase, by consent of the owner, or by condemnation, but cannot lawfully be taken against the consent of the owner without compensation. The right to the owner, by whatever method the land is taken, is compensation, which right he may expressly or by inaction waive. He may by inaction waive his right to the land. Where electric and power lines are established that furnish light and power to the public, all alike, including business and industry of all kinds, the factory, shop, store, transportation, the citizen, private and corporate, church and school, and the home itself, become dependent on the service for their individual and general welfare.
If a landowner stands by and permits without legal objection, a public utility company to appropriate his land to its necessary corporate use until such becomes a necessary and constituent part of its service to the public, and the rights of the public intervene to such extent that to oust the company would interrupt the service and deny it to the public, the landowner, not for the protection so much of the company but for the benefit of the public, will be estopped from recovering the land in ejectment or from enjoining its use for the service, but will, if he moves in time, be remitted to an appropriate action for damages....
MCI, Inc. and MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc., v. Duane G. West,
Case No. 03-93824 [ pdf file]
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Sad bttt!
“You have a true talent for reading into this what you will. We won’t know the facts unless and until we do.”
That’s right. We- and that DOES include you- do NOT know all the facts, only HER side of the story.
Do you often trust what you hear in the media? Has it NOT occured to you that they could be flavoring this with their usual “if it bleeds, it leads” mindset?
Perhaps you have made up your mind already...”Bad cop- no donut”. How’s THIS for reading into a situation: I have found it to be inexorably true that those who hate cops, do so because they got caught once. Or maybe twice.
“I believe the norm is a body cavity search.”
...And were you there? You know this is what happened for a FACT? Oh DO tell!
I have seen this video or a similar version on all 3 local news stations- there’s nothing new here and my reaction is still a sense of “BULLS%$T”. I hope her lawyer didn’t break anything in his rush to get to her house.
Of COURSE they are going to sue.
My answer was pretty straight foreward, individuals can not stop a power line. So if the question is can she stop the power line? The answer was I thought pretty straight foreword, no.
Please explain what you meant by my agenda.
I wish the deputy had been more clear as to her “disorderly conduct”. Bet he does right about now, too. He had better write a better report. Suspension without pay is a bitch.
Every state and town has easement laws and the right to eminent domain. We aren’t talking “Pfizer” here- we are talking about a public use upgrade of services. The place to voice your opinion- even in a brutish and abusive way- is at your town hall meeting. Harrassing the surveyors doing their job is certainly NOT the way to go about it. The cop has witnesses as to what happened. Now, they will either support him or hang him. We will have to wait and see.
Sorry. My money is still on the cop.
I know it used to be illegal here in IL. They can have second jobs as Security officers or what have you, but they're absolutely not allowed to wear their duty uniforms or carry their PD badges.
L
L
L
Better info:
http://www.georgiapower.com/about/pdf/eminent_domain.pdf
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb943.htm
I’ll be more more than pleased to speculate about what I think you agenda is.
However, first, do you think I should have say what happens on my property, and why can I have a say, but she doesn’t?
The second and third hand stories I have heard are from people who want not only more than fair market value, but usually enough to retire on for the rest of their life. Fortunately for taxpayers, the Constitution does not support that interpretation.
I have never seen a case where land went for less than the fair market value and have seen many times when it went for MORE than fair market value. Some people have a greatly inflated value of what their land is worth, but there are plenty of PRIVATE appraisers to go to to confirm or dispute the offer.
I have seen several times when a person hires several appraisers who come up with numbers that are not high enough for him. One after another is fired. At least twice, I have seen the person go to court tying to convince 12 taxpayers that they should open their wallets for him — just because he wants more, not because the land is worth more. In neither case did the taxpayers side with the owner.
I know in some states, the laws allow the jury to take the easy way out — split the difference. In my state, the jury must take either the States offer or the owners claim. No splitting the difference. That discourages both sides to make unreasonable claims.
That's bad.
They should put the "anybody" in jail, not you.
Or is this a post from the inbred-English area?
Well, he did pass the bar exam. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.