Replies

Was she told to leave her property?

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....