People v. Horelick, 30 N.Y.2d 453 (1972)
The right to enter property, even when arguably justified, does not permit the use of force or illegal methods to gain entry; self-help is not a defense to criminal trespass or resisting arrest.
Summary
Horelick, a teacher, was convicted of criminal trespass and resisting arrest after he and others forcibly entered a locked high school during a teachers’ strike. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that regardless of whether the school should have been open, Horelick’s use of force to enter was unlawful. The court emphasized that disputes should be resolved through legal channels, not through self-help and force. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining order and resolving conflicts through established procedures, even when motivated by a sincere belief in a cause.
Facts
During a city-wide teachers’ strike, a high school principal ordered the school to remain closed and locked. Horelick, a teacher, disagreed with the closure and planned to enter the building. He gained access through a basement window and was confronted by a member of the custodial staff. A struggle ensued as Horelick attempted to unlock the doors to allow others to enter. Police were called, and Horelick resisted arrest, including physically resisting the officer. A crowd of supporters gathered during the arrest.
Procedural History
Horelick was convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree and resisting arrest. He appealed the conviction. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. Horelick then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a person, believing they have a right or duty to be in a building, can use self-help, including force or illegal methods, to enter that building when it is locked and closed, and then resist arrest when police intervene.
Holding
No, because regardless of any perceived right or duty, the use of force or illegal methods to enter property, and resistance of arrest, is unlawful and cannot be justified by the belief in the righteousness of one’s cause.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the central issue was not the lawfulness of the school’s closure, but Horelick’s use of force to enter the building. The court stated, “Even such property rights, by still being subject to restrictions on the use of force, emphasize the policy against self-help by force or other illegal methods.” The court emphasized that established procedures must be followed, even if those procedures are inconvenient. The court highlighted the availability of remedies through superiors, police assistance, and ultimately the courts, rather than resorting to force. It noted that the Penal Law defines trespass in terms of a “license” or “privilege” to enter (Penal Law, § 140.00, subd. 5), and Horelick’s actions exceeded any such license. The court explicitly rejected the notion that controversies should be resolved in the streets or school corridors, stating that “it is not tolerable that the controversies be resolved in the streets or the school corridors, instead of under law, and in the courts, if necessary.” While acknowledging Horelick’s possible sincere motivation, the court held that condoning self-help force would be a grave consequence. The court implied that the appropriate course of action would have been to seek assistance from superiors or the police, and if necessary, to pursue legal action in the courts.