Does Light Consist of "Object[S]"?(reason.com) |
Does Light Consist of "Object[S]"?(reason.com) |
What if we increase the light intensity? You can go all the way up to when the house bursts into flames, and retinal damage will happen long before that.
What if we change the frequency of the light? You can cause retinal damage quite fast with strong UV light and the victim wouldn't even know that it's happening to avert their eyes.
I guess "trespass" would not be applicable, but assault surely will.
However, I don't think it's a weak analysis given the question the court had to answer.
They weren't asked "Can your neighbor get away with shining any light on you or your property, no matter how intense?" but rather "Does shining a light on a person's property count as 'Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual' for purposes of this specific Michigan statute that defines 'unconsented contact' that would support a nondomestic PPO"?
In fact, Michigan state law and the Dearborn, Michigan local ordinances (like numerous other state and local laws) do separately prohibit the use of lasers to injure/harass (at least under certain circumstances): https://www.laserpointersafety.com/rules-general/uslaws/usla....
At some level, we all have to get along, and we all have to accept that our neighbours actions are going to affect us in myriad small ways.
I’m all for critical examination and regulation of externalities inflicted on third parties as a result of private activity, but if we start counting photons, I worry that we’ve lost the plot and are simply caving to people who don’t actually want to live in society with others.
I have no idea what the truth of the matter in this case is, but reading the appeal, the guy just sounds like a crank who got a new neighbours who live differently than he does, and he doesn’t like it.
Many such cases, if my previous work experience in the criminal justice system is any indication.
The stalking statute defines “Unconsented contact” as "any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without that individual’s consent or in disregard of that individual’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued." It then goes on to list seven things that constitute unconsented contact, with the caveat that the definition includes "but is not limited to, any of" those seven things. A little further down in the opinion the court explains "Petitioner contends that the light stemming from respondents’ flood lights constitutes unconsented contact under MCL 750.411h(1)(f)(vii)."
Perhaps the statute could use a little tightening, but it seems to me that hanging your hat on "light is an object" is a silly argument, when you could just as easily have argued that shining the lights is contact of the kind that isn't expressly included in the non-exhaustive list. If true, one might be able to show that it was done on purpose and with knowledge that it would annoy. That should be enough to constitute unconsented contact, especially when you compare it to the other kinds of things the statute lists (e.g., "Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual" with no requirement that they be opened or read).
It's also worth noting that the court didn't overrule the trial court on the other arguments the petitioner made because "there was no persuasive evidence showing that respondents were responsible for these incidents" and "given [the] lack of detail, the trial court did not clearly err." Moral of the story: if you think your neighbor is harassing you, make a note of dates and times.
But all we have as evidence is the complainant's word.
Were there lights at all? Were they 10 lumen or 100,000 lumen? Were they really "aimed at his bedroom" all night?
Neither you nor I have any idea if he is telling the truth.
My own judgement, solely from the snippets of the complainant words in the judgement, is that he sounds like a crank, so I'd guess he is exaggerating and just doesn't like his neighbours. At one point he refers to them as spot lights, at another point the same lights are described as flood lights. That alone hints (to me) that he's either not all there or is just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Regardless, nothing in my comment implied that that I thought this was normal. I was solely responding to the idea that the analysis was weak. I think you were trying to argue that since at extreme's light could resemble crimes like assault, that ignoring light's impact was shortsighted. I agree, however I am also aware that at the other extreme, people differ vastly in what they see as excessive light. Because of this variance, I suspect that a legal regime which interpreted photons as objects hitting another's property would lead to similarly absurd places.