Originally posted by deadwolfbones Trespassing is a crime, is it not?
The question is... were the 2 Norwegian's trespassing? If they were standing on a public street or sidewalk taking photos of the gate, they were not trespassing. Private individuals cannot generally restrict photos of their property from outside of that property. Public officials similarly cannot generally restrict access to public property on behalf of or at the behest of private property owners.
And, as I said in another thread on this issue, it should be a simple photo-forensic exercise to determine whether the photographers were on public or private property when they were arrested.
And finally, even if they were on private property, there is always the long standing condition that generally preceeds a trespassing charge... that is... being notified either in writing (a No Trespassing sign)or verbally that they were trespassing and then refused a command to leave. While this is not strictly required once you are clearly on private property (say you climbed the fence) it is generally a requirement when the line between public and private property is unclear or the least bit vague.
Mike
p.s. Shooz is right about the thread title too. We have no idea if Chelsea is a "bridezilla" or not, but regardless, since her daddy isn't the Prez any more, and she is over 16, her SS protection is gone. Any SS protection activities surrounding this incident are purely because of her daddy (lifetime SS protection) and mommy (current Sec State gets SS protection)