Lauren's invitation for arrest Friday the 13th

[Tom Sawyer]

Invited To Tresspass

[Jim Johnson]

Cops are shit.

[Tom Sawyer]

Cops are shit.

Coprophilia   

[Tom Sawyer]

Cops are shit.

Coprophilia   

I just got a GREAT T-shirt idea...

Coprophilia
Happy as a pig in shit!

[Pat K]

YA there to cute by half.

[Kat Kanning]

That wasn't a very nice thing for them to do.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Sue

[Russell Kanning]

strange

[Russell Kanning]

so if she goes to jail .... will it be "trespassing" or will she be an invited guest at Keene's ministry of love.
of course all of their guests wear handcuffs and have to take their shoes off when they enter

[littlehawk]

It's sad that the piggies have nothing better to do. Wasting tax money playing games. These idiots should be ashamed of theirselves.

The "Little Lady Lauren Sting Operation." Keeping us all safe.

[littlehawk]

Invite some piggies to your house. Then charge them with trespassing. Touche'

[Silent_Bob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

[Russell Kanning]

things she probably heard:

maam you are making these choices
you know you are not supposed to  come here
I'm just doing my job
Mizzz Canario

[KBCraig]

I guess since her notice of trespass was due to expire next month, they needed to refresh it.

[MaineShark]

I can't get the video to work right now, but this might be applicable, assuming the invitation was written...

626:3 Effect of Ignorance or Mistake. –
    I. A person is not relieved of criminal liability because he acts under a mistaken belief of fact unless:
       (a) The mistake negatives the culpable mental state required for commission of the offense; or
       (b) The statute defining the offense expressly provides that such mistake is a defense; or
       (c) Such mistake supports a defense of justification as defined in RSA 627.
    II. A person is not relieved of criminal liability because he acts under a mistaken belief that his conduct does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense unless his belief is founded upon a statement of the law contained in a statute or other enactment, or an administrative order or grant of permission, or a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or a written interpretation of the law relating to the offense officially made by a public servant, agency or body legally empowered with authority to administer, enforce or interpret such law. The defendant must prove a defense arising under this subsection by a preponderance of evidence.

[emphasis added]

Entrapment would apply:

626:5 Entrapment. – It is an affirmative defense that the actor committed the offense because he was induced or encouraged to do so by a law enforcement official or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence against him and when the methods used to obtain such evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it. However, conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

Either needs to be proved by the accused, by a preponderance of the evidence (ie, "more likely than not," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), which should not be hard, if the evidence even remotely exists.

Interestingly, whomever invited Lauren to come to the jail, knowing it would constitute trespassing, could be charged with criminal solicitation (629:2) or conspiracy (629:3) for inviting an illegal act to occur.  So, not only would either of those two defenses potentially relieve Lauren of criminal liability, but the individual who invited her could actually be charged, and face the same penalty that she would have (her use of the defense does not eliminate their liability, since the behavior was still criminal, just excused by the defense).

Joe