Search Seizure Or Trespass Essay




Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) Case CJ -- 2012-1014


Defendant and Appellant )


Shrek the Ogre has for a fair amount of years, owned a property near the swamps -- a place more or less undesirable by the rest of the community of the town. He has lived a quiet existence, keeping out of everyone way, and in this regard has been a model citizen. He has made the claim on the property known in no clearer terms by posting signs which indicate that the property belongs to him, and any intrusion of any sort would not be appreciated. He stresses a great deal of importance for the need of privacy and therefore prefers this seclusion.

The sudden injection of the fairy land creatures to this part of the town and on the property of Shrek the Ogre has caused considerable harm to him and violates his rights. The property has been designated as the resettlement facility, as per the claim being made by the fairytale creatures. They claim that they were not invited and didn't want to come to the swamp even, in the first place; instead they were made to come there by Lord Farquaad. They were given no choice, and are in a fact the victim themselves in this situation. Shrek the Ogre claims that this is trespassing, since no one had sought his consent in any way for the use of his swamp. The fairytale creatures have testified that this is not trespassing since they never had any intention of stepping on the Ogre's property but were forcefully evicted, and therefore their intention needs to be considered firstly in this case.

Lord Farquaad himself does not deny that he took these actions, but backs them with the theory that they were done in the interest of the community and the greater good. For him the removal of the fairytale creatures does conform to the standard of being considered as the greater good. He considers them evil and therefore the best course of action, as per him, is the restraining of these creatures in a secure facility, where a look can be maintained upon them. It is...


He has sought the counsel of his Courts and Noblemen, which is as close as a Congress form that he has, and it is upon their decision and advice that he has acted. Therefore, there is no question of acting out on the basis of self-interest.


The Elements of the Action. A trespass is considered to have occurred when a person intentionally, recklessly or negligently enters land in the possession of another. (Gallin v. Poulou (1956) 140 Cal. App. 2d 638, 645) (Gallin v. Poulou). But the defendant's intrusions are not of any possessory kind. (Halperin v. Pitts (2011)) (Halperin v. Pitts). However, for the greater good of the community and for redevelopment purposes the Government does have the right to occupy private property. (Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)) (Kelo v. New London). This act was in consent with this Governors and Court members and therefore didn't imply any wrong doings on his part. (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343, U.S. 579 (1952)) (Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer).

Lord Farquaad Actions is not reflective of the Fairytale Creatures Intention. The fairy tale creatures are making their argument by giving a detailed account of the events which have led to their eviction and finally finding themselves on the private property of the Ogre. They claim that since there actions do no imply as trespassing, since they didn't have any intention of doing it.

Furthermore, they claim that it is the actions of Lord Farquaad, which should be taken into account. His actions stem from his dislike of the fairytale creatures and therefore planned to remove them from the surrounding of this own constituency and resettle them far away. It is for this purpose that he had selected the swamp.

The fairytale creatures knew that this was a private property but they were forced onto the land, whose status had been changed by Law and Lord Farquaad as that of a "Resettlement facility."…

Sources Used in Documents:

Works Cited

Gallin v. Poulou. No. 16602. California . 10th April 1956.

Halperin v. Pitts. No. A139639. Washington County Circuit Court. 19th March 2010.

Kelo v. New London. No. 545 U.S. 469. Supreme Court of the United States. 23rd June 2005.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. No. U.S. 579 . United States Supreme Court . 2nd June 1952.

Cite this Document:

"Search Seizure Or Trespass" (2012, March 27) Retrieved June 18, 2024, from

"Search Seizure Or Trespass" 27 March 2012. Web.18 June. 2024. <>

"Search Seizure Or Trespass", 27 March 2012, Accessed.18 June. 2024,

Related Documents

Further, these writs, once issued, could be reused, and did not expire until the death of the reigning monarch (Knappman, 33). In Massachusetts, a group of colonial merchants, represented by James Otis, petitioned the Superior Court to refuse any new applications of writ following the death of George II. Otis, using the phrase "A man's house is his castle," argued in the case that the writs were a direct violation

Fourth Amendment For all Americans, the Fourth Amendment is an essential element of the U.S. Constitution that protects everyone's rights. This has influenced the way that the criminal justice system is interacting with defendants and the tactics that are utilized by law enforcement when conducting investigations. To fully understand how this is impacting society and legal proceedings requires studying various sources. This will be accomplished using academic information (i.e. books, case

Open Fields Doctrine and Its Relevance to the U.S. Constitution What is the open fields doctrine? According to the definition provided by Black's Law Dictionary (1990), the open fields doctrine "permits police officers to enter and search a field without a warrant. The term 'open fields' may include any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage (Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct., 1735" (1091). For the purposes of searches

Private Security Officers Ethical Responsibilities Private Security Officers The objective of this study is to examine the importance of ethics in security. Towards this end this work will examine the regulations and laws in this area of inquiry as well as reporting on case law in this area of the law. Rules and Regulations The 'Rules and Regulations -- Relating to the Licensing and Regulation of the Private Security Guard Business Pursuant to the

American Government Politics

American Government Politics. Discussed is the fourth amendment and the current policies of searches and seizures. Four sources used. Footnotes. Fourth Amendment Americans hold very dear the Bill of Rights. Among the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights is the Fourth, one many refer to as the most ambiguous of the all the amendments. Search and seizure law is drawn from the Fourth and over the years the

4th Amendment's evolution and history, together with the "search and seizure" law. 4th Amendment Background People's rights of being secure in personal effects, papers, houses and persons, against unreasonable seizures and searches, may not be breached, nor shall any warrants be issued, but in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should