SMART Meters...Arrested...WTF?

Except that is not what was charged. I'm all for giving the LEO the benefit of the doubt but you don't just charge interference/obstruction....especially on private property if there was a "real" offense you could charge.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

However, you, like everyone else are going from the media reports, all I'm sayng is look at all sides. It doesn't give any explanations of why the thinking was what it was, media reports never do. They pick out the juicy bits of an incident, pander to local prejudices and sell newspare/advertising etc. people go along with whatever is reported, where's the cynicism here?
It's not so much giving anybody the doubt, it's about realising there may be more to an incident than one first thinks when one reads the write up, there could be far more to it from either or both sides than one imagines that caused this to happen. Perhaps it was set up to make the police look bad, perhaps the police bungled it worse than this makes it seem, whatever though there's more to it than this.
 
Last I checked calling a cop an ******* isn't illegal, except for the "contempt of cop" charge where they find something to charge you with to harass you.
 
However, you, like everyone else are going from the media reports, all I'm sayng is look at all sides. It doesn't give any explanations of why the thinking was what it was, media reports never do. They pick out the juicy bits of an incident, pander to local prejudices and sell newspare/advertising etc. people go along with whatever is reported, where's the cynicism here?
It's not so much giving anybody the doubt, it's about realising there may be more to an incident than one first thinks when one reads the write up, there could be far more to it from either or both sides than one imagines that caused this to happen. Perhaps it was set up to make the police look bad, perhaps the police bungled it worse than this makes it seem, whatever though there's more to it than this.

The levied charge tells me volumes.

You also have to look at the reason the cop is there in the first place as well. If a power company shows up and the homeowner refuses to let them on the property the charge in the end shouldn't be interference....what was the legal action the COP was performing that the homeowner interfered with? The power company had the "right of way"....not the officer. We have the ability to arrest on a crime that happens in our presence or on probable cause. Keeping someone off your property in this situation is not a crime in the legal definition.

Believe me..I have first hand experience with the temptation to arrest and charge for "contempt of cop"...but that statute doesn't exist.

And the fact remains that the two arrested just HAPPENED to be leaders of an organization that was protesting these meters...


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Unless the woman arrested isn't quite telling the truth and she actually did something arrestable like assault a police officer etc. So often these reports are very one sided with people already having an opinion on the various 'sides'.

And that video of the man...his story is very similar to the woman's. Tell the power company NO and they call the police who threaten you with arrest? And even threaten to kill your dog in the mans case? The only difference in the stories is that the man decided that the trouble wasn't worth it and let them in.

My job isn't to be a goon for the electric company....yes you sign a contract with the power company giving them rights to access their equipment, but violating that is a breach of contract...not a crime. That's not something you should even have a cop showing up at your door for.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
The levied charge tells me volumes.

You also have to look at the reason the cop is there in the first place as well. If a power company shows up and the homeowner refuses to let them on the property the charge in the end shouldn't be interference....what was the legal action the COP was performing that the homeowner interfered with? The power company had the "right of way"....not the officer. We have the ability to arrest on a crime that happens in our presence or on probable cause. Keeping someone off your property in this situation is not a crime in the legal definition.

Believe me..I have first hand experience with the temptation to arrest and charge for "contempt of cop"...but that statute doesn't exist.

And the fact remains that the two arrested just HAPPENED to be leaders of an organization that was protesting these meters...


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


The power company has a right of way. It is not conditional. The woman was denying them access to their equipment. The power company employee has no means to enforce that right of way himself. For that he must rely on law enforcement. Not all that different from calling LEOs to enforce an eviction notice.
 
The power company has a right of way. It is not conditional. The woman was denying them access to their equipment. The power company employee has no means to enforce that right of way himself. For that he must rely on law enforcement. Not all that different from calling LEOs to enforce an eviction notice.

But if I have a right-of-way on my neighbor's property--as someone does on my mother-in-law's--I'd have to get a court order and then ask a LEO to help me enforce it. Should the utility have done this?
 
The power company has a right of way. It is not conditional. The woman was denying them access to their equipment. The power company employee has no means to enforce that right of way himself. For that he must rely on law enforcement. Not all that different from calling LEOs to enforce an eviction notice.

An eviction notice is issued by the court after process. We enforce a COURT ORDER. The landlord CANT just call the cops to kick you out whenever he wishes....you are wrong here. Denying the power company its access is a violation of contract. Short of a public emergency its not arrestable.
 
Last edited:
The power company has a right of way. It is not conditional. The woman was denying them access to their equipment. The power company employee has no means to enforce that right of way himself. For that he must rely on law enforcement. Not all that different from calling LEOs to enforce an eviction notice.


I'll say it again...

Yes they have a right of way...but denying them that right is not a penal law offense. They can cut off your power, they can jack up your rates, fine you, or get a court order demanding you give them access (then you can be arrested for disobeying the order)...but you shouldn't be getting arrested. This was a civil law violation. The charge laid here is indicative that the cop couldn't find an arrestable violation of penal law.

If there was a public emergency necessitating immediate access to utility lines/connection I could charge "criminal nuisance" or perhaps reckless endangerment if the property owner interfered. What was the immediate emergency necessitating an arrest in this instance?
 
I'll say it again...

Yes they have a right of way...but denying them that right is not a penal law offense. They can cut off your power, they can jack up your rates, fine you, or get a court order demanding you give them access (then you can be arrested for disobeying the order)...but you shouldn't be getting arrested. This was a civil law violation. The charge laid here is indicative that the cop couldn't find an arrestable violation of penal law.

If there was a public emergency necessitating immediate access to utility lines/connection I could charge "criminal nuisance" or perhaps reckless endangerment if the property owner interfered. What was the immediate emergency necessitating an arrest in this instance?

They can't dut off your power or jack your rates.

As far as I remember, utilities right of way is different than me having a right of way to my neighbour in that it does not require a court order to enforce. We all make the assumption that the power company called the cops who immediately arrested the homeowner. Methinks there is something missing from the middle of that story.
 
They can't dut off your power or jack your rates.

As far as I remember, utilities right of way is different than me having a right of way to my neighbour in that it does not require a court order to enforce. We all make the assumption that the power company called the cops who immediately arrested the homeowner. Methinks there is something missing from the middle of that story.


Regardless..its a civil violation..not a penal law violation. This is a violation of a contract you sign. Not a violation of PENAL LAW. Refusal does not mean a warrant-less intrusion onto private property and arrest. You would need a court order.

What arrestable charge is there for refusing the power company access? There isn't one. You need a court order and then you can arrest for refusal to comply to it. The power company needing access for a public emergency is an entirely different matter from access for equipment maintenance.

As far as I REMEMBER during my career as an LEO...I don't pick a side in civil law disputes....
 
They can't dut off your power or jack your rates.


The certainly can depending on the wording of your contract. Granted power cut-off in winter would be a NO-GO but they could fine/fee you for refusal to allow equipment upgrades.

Remember...you give the power company right of way onto your property as part of a contract with them (power lines or poles on your property are another matter). This woman was in violation of a private contract...not public law
 
Last edited:
There is something missing in that story.

As I said, as far as I can remember, utilities don't need a seperate court ordewr to enforce their right of way. So
1)the power company shows up and is refused entry.
2)Thet call the local LE to enforce thir rights.
3)The homeowner is arrested.

I get the feeling that there is a 2.5 in there. I don't see the LEOs just arresting the woman for the initial refusal. Matbe I'm naive, but I tend to give LEOs more credit than that.
 
Two vocal opponents of Naperville’s initiative to install wireless electric meters on homes were arrested after interfering with the installation process, according to city officials.
Police are accompanying crews this week as they install smart meters at homes that previously sent away installers.
“The previous installation attempts were met with some resistance and we wanted to ensure our employees’ safety,” City Manager Doug Krieger said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...e-smart-meter-arrest-20130123,0,6519967.story

The city, which has repeatedly declared the wireless meters to be safe, offers a non-wireless alternative meter to residents with concerns. There is a $68.35 initial fee for a non-wireless meter plus a $24.75 monthly fee for manually reading it. Stahl said residents who want a non-wireless meter should not have to pay for it, and said she represents other homeowners who were not able to continue to refuse the wireless meter installation.

The two women arrested Wednesday are leaders of the group.
Malia "Kim" Bendis of the 2200 block of Mercer Court was charged with two misdemeanors — attempted eavesdropping and resisting a peace officer.
Jennifer Stahl of the 1400 block of Westglen Drive, received two ordinance violation citations — interfering with a police officer and preventing access to customer premises.

Those are the charges.
 
Well then they got what they deserved. The power company provides the service. They say if you want our service you need to use our meters. They say "I dont want your meters". So company's says OK here's an alternative but its more work for us so we will charge you for the work. They still don't like it. Workers come out and the woman interfere and got arrested.
I'm not sure about the lady just recording if she was not in the way she should have been left alone to record but the lady who's house it was violated the law.
If she doesn't want the electric companies product get solar panels or wind turbine or both.
I wonder if Mrs Stahl who's worried about the "wireless" meter has a cell phone
 
According to the story they Already have a federal lawsuit in courts. She should have called her lawyer and asked him to file an injunction to prevent them installing the new meters the first time they tried.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top