Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Criminal Obstruction <br /> <br />. There is no Colorado appellate decision interpreting the criminal obstruction statute, in <br />particular the appropriate scope and meaning in context of the following terms: <br />legal privilege <br />waterway <br />a substantial group of the public <br />access <br />impassable <br />unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous <br /> <br />· Ifmere ownership of real property by itself were sufficient "legal privilege" to enable a <br />landowner to erect barriers across waterways and other places of passage on that real <br />property, the criminal obstruction statute would be significantly narrowed in its application <br />since it could not be applied to landowners. <br /> <br />. Although there is no Colorado appellate decision on point, it appears that the crimes of <br />criminal trespass and criminal obstruction are not necessarily mutually exclusive -- in other <br />words, a landowner may be subject to prosecution for criminal obstmction for erecting a <br />barrier, and a floate'r may be subject to prosecution for criminal trespass for touching the <br />same barrier, depending on the circumstances, <br /> <br />Civil Liability <br /> <br />. The presence or absence of a cause of action for damages with respect to an injury to a floater <br />resulting from an individual act of floating depends on numerous facts and legal relationships <br />that are unique to the particular situation, <br /> <br />AG FILE, P,\NR\NRHANNFZ\RCDOCS\FLOA T200C <br /> <br />2 <br />