Court: North Dakota Supreme Court; November 5, 2018; North Dakota; State Supreme Court
Rebecca Kathleen Jessee appeals a district court order deferring sentence after being convicted of tampering with a public service during the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. Jessee contends that her presence on the railroad tracks did not amount to tampering and that the district court incorrectly classified Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway as a public service. The court reversed this decision, determining that Jessee's mere presence did not constitute tampering with tangible property.
In November 2016, a standoff occurred between protesters and law enforcement at the railroad tracks, prompting law enforcement to halt train operations due to reports of protesters attempting to obstruct the tracks. Although some protesters placed debris on the tracks, Jessee was not part of that group but was subsequently arrested for being near the tracks. The district court found that Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway was a public service and ruled that Jessee's presence caused a significant disruption.
Jessee argued that the evidence was insufficient for her conviction, citing that tampering necessitates a physical action or damage to property, and that her passive presence on the tracks, especially after train services had been halted, did not meet this criterion. The court reviewed the facts under the sufficient evidence standard, emphasizing that it must determine if the evidence allowed for a reasonable inference of guilt while not reweighing evidence or assessing witness credibility.
The State claims that Jessee's presence on the railroad tracks during a protest constituted tampering, which led to a significant disruption of train operations. Under North Dakota Century Code (N.D.C.C.) 12.1-21-06, a substantial interruption must arise from tampering or damaging property, incapacitating an operator, or negligent damage through dangerous means. The trains were halted for approximately one hour and forty-five minutes, resulting in a cost of $2,071.19 to the Railway, which the district court deemed substantial. Although evidence supports the finding of a substantial interruption, it does not substantiate claims of tampering with tangible property.
The State argues that the definition of 'tampering' in N.D.C.C. 49-04.1-01(3) supports its position, suggesting that 'tampering' is akin to 'interfering' and applies to Jessee's actions. However, the State acknowledges this definition is not directly applicable. The definition denotes tampering as any damage, alteration, or interference with utility meters, specifically within a chapter related to unauthorized utility service metering.
The interpretation of statutory definitions is a legal question reviewed de novo. According to N.D.C.C. 1-01-09, definitions established in one statute generally apply throughout the Century Code unless otherwise indicated. The definition in N.D.C.C. 49-04.1-01 is limited to its chapter, indicating that different contexts, such as railroad operations versus utility services, warrant distinct interpretations.
The court concludes that the definition in N.D.C.C. 49-04.1-01(3) is neither controlling nor persuasive for defining 'tampering' in the context of N.D.C.C. 12.1-21-06. Previous court interpretations of tampering require evidence of harmful changes or alterations, as demonstrated in various cases involving public services and material objects, reinforcing that mere presence on the tracks does not meet the threshold for tampering.
Other states have defined tampering with public services or utilities as requiring some form of alteration or harmful conduct. Relevant case law includes Sanchez v. State, where removing parts of an electric meter to divert power was deemed sufficient evidence of tampering; Commonwealth v. Faherty, which involved vandalism of a parking meter; and United States v. Davis, where trespassing in a water treatment plant and disabling equipment supported tampering charges. In contrast, Jessee's case involved her passive presence on railroad tracks, which was deemed unauthorized but not tampering, as there was no evidence of her altering the property or engaging in harmful conduct. Although law enforcement noted a group of protestors tampering by placing debris on the tracks, Jessee was not implicated in those actions. As her mere presence did not constitute tampering, the court reversed the district court's order regarding her guilt.
