I think there
is a "prosecutor's discretion".
About 20 years ago, my next door neighbor arrived in Spring to a broken windowpane next to his front door lock. His home had been violated, but nothing appeared touched or missing. His place, built in the 1940s, is only 30-feet from Lake Winnipesaukee's edge, so its location would've been inviting
--given an emergency.
Was it a Ski-Doo "felon" in desperate need of a telephone to call 911? A "felonious" fisherman from a bobhouse who, despite his own efforts to avoid frostbite, desperately needed shelter and a space heater for himself and a child?
There are
countless reasons not to proceed with prosecution, and I'd suspect
countless cases never saw a courtroom. I'd expect Codeman could be strongly dissuaded from continuing under the desperate "felonious" circumstances listed above.
The above causes "desperate urination" to fall to a much lower level of prosecution. (Especially if such desperation is irritated by a medical condition).
We've lived next door peacefully for 66 years without surveilling one another. Is the posting of "ADT" surveillance and "no trespassing" signage a response of surveilling in one's home state? (Like the "killer" trespassing laws expected of
New Jersey?)
Two "protected by ADT" signs have popped up nearby recently. One summer resident is from a New York City suburb--another from Washington, DC. (Two hotbeds of criminality).
Britain, with 4 million surveillance cameras, has described itself as a "Hellish Surveillance Society".
With the possible exception of a future NH trail camera, I choose not to be part of any "Surveillance Society".
