Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Journalists Trespass, Assault Tesla employees at the Gigafactory

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Nice try! Taking pictures is a legitimate business purpose for the press. The fact that Tesla might be annoyed by it isn't going to make it trespass or qualify that as the intent of the reporters. Even if the law could be construed that way, the first amendment would render it unconstitutional. Furthermore, a flyover is not "upon the land" or "unto any building."

Could you please clarify what you are trying to say here? Let's break this into two parts, trepass versus a flyover.

In the case of the state of Nevada you are not saying that reporters can't be charged with trespassing simply because they are the press are you?

Thanks.

Larry
 
Forgotten is that this is a $5 Billion facility. Industrial espionage must be taken seriously, so if someone shows up, taking pictures, you must take steps to protect your intellectual and private information. Other auto and tech companies would love to know everything that Tesla is doing in their brand new, state of the art facility.

The security had no way of knowing if these people were working for the press, or were international spies, trying to steal secrets worth millions to their competitors.
It looks like security was just trying to keep the people from running away, with all their secret information, until the authorities could arrive and sort out the issue.


All the photographer needed to do was to remain calm and wait for the authorities to arrive and it would have been sorted out. Trying to run probably enraged the security, and had them envisioning a worst case scenario.

Keep in mind that Elon has stated several times, and posted in the Tesla blog that "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." and further: "We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."
 
Keep in mind that Elon has stated several times, and posted in the Tesla blog that "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." and further: "We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."

While true, I'm not sure that Tesla is willing to give away their battery chemistry specifics. I'm not saying they won't under the right circumstances but the batteries have other companies involved such as Panasonic. I'm not sure that Tesla can hand away Panasonic secrets as readily as they can hand over their secrets.
 
Could you please clarify what you are trying to say here? Let's break this into two parts, trepass versus a flyover.

In the case of the state of Nevada you are not saying that reporters can't be charged with trespassing simply because they are the press are you?

I was responding to ItsNotAboutTheMoney and his (or her) hypothetical where the drone flyover could be contrued as trespass because it was vexatious to Tesla. That is not what the "vex and annoy" provision was intended to accomplish in the statute. There are a multitude of reasons why the trespass statute does not apply to a flyover. The implication that freedom of the press permits criminal acts was a result of sloppy language on my part. I was simply trying to say that you cannot say that otherwise legal press activity is illegal simply because it is annoying -- a law that attempted to criminalize "annoyance" alone would be unconstitutional.
 
Keep in mind that Elon has stated several times, and posted in the Tesla blog that "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." and further: "We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."
That only applies to the patents. Tesla likely has trade secrets (or Panasonic does) that they do not disclose in patents. This is very common in the industry (as once you patent something it is specified in the patent).
 
Nice try! Taking pictures is a legitimate business purpose for the press. The fact that Tesla might be annoyed by it isn't going to make it trespass or qualify that as the intent of the reporters. Even if the law could be construed that way, the first amendment would render it unconstitutional. Furthermore, a flyover is not "upon the land" or "unto any building."

That's a stretch. First amendment protects the right to free expression, not freedom of action. The trespass law does _not_ say "sole intent". The law is to me very clearly written such that:
- you can't go onto or be on others' property if you've clearly been told not to
- you can't go onto others' property and do something that you know will annoy them.
Nothing in that denies the rights of the journalist to free expression.
For what the journalists did not to be trespass I think they're needs to be a combination of easy access, no clear signage, no deception, no damage and no prior communication from Tesla that barred photos on the site.

Whether the security guards then had the right to detain the journalists and that therefore they weren't just acting is self-defense is a different matter.
 
I was responding to ItsNotAboutTheMoney and his (or her) hypothetical where the drone flyover could be contrued as trespass because it was vexatious to Tesla. That is not what the "vex and annoy" provision was intended to accomplish in the statute. There are a multitude of reasons why the trespass statute does not apply to a flyover. The implication that freedom of the press permits criminal acts was a result of sloppy language on my part. I was simply trying to say that you cannot say that otherwise legal press activity is illegal simply because it is annoying -- a law that attempted to criminalize "annoyance" alone would be unconstitutional.

Thank you for the clarification.

Larry
 
As you noted, other states allow arrest in misdemeanor cases only where the crime was personally witnessed, which could rule out the guys who showed up later in the ATV.
I don't think it does. First of all, it is unclear if the Jeep was parked within or outside Tesla property. Second of all, it seemed there were only two security guards involved in the incident. One who tried to stop the two journalists earlier before they got to the Jeep, and one who drove the ATV to the Jeep. And both were in the ATV at some point while the journalists were in the Jeep.
 
I was responding to ItsNotAboutTheMoney and his (or her) hypothetical where the drone flyover could be contrued as trespass because it was vexatious to Tesla. That is not what the "vex and annoy" provision was intended to accomplish in the statute. There are a multitude of reasons why the trespass statute does not apply to a flyover. The implication that freedom of the press permits criminal acts was a result of sloppy language on my part. I was simply trying to say that you cannot say that otherwise legal press activity is illegal simply because it is annoying -- a law that attempted to criminalize "annoyance" alone would be unconstitutional.

Oh, sorry, now I see there's some confusion. (I responded before I you clarified). My comments weren't directed to drone flyover, it was about journalists entering the private property and taking photos that they know are bound to annoy.

But, I do think that a drone flyover _could_ be trespass if the flyover is low enough to be considered to be on the property.

The key is not that it's annoying in itself, it's that it's (a) on someone's property (b) and you already know that it will annoy them.
 
The rules on "drones" in the U.S are still unclear so I doubt Tesla would want to start shooting them down. All of the well done drone videos people have done have only brought more publicity to the project.

When we were building the new Mercedes plant in Vance, AL, there was a lot of media interest in construction progress, and the company provided only limited access. This was in the days before drones; so press people simply occasionally hired a helicopter and flew over. I never heard anyone at the company express an interest in acquiring surface-to-air missiles.
 
While true, I'm not sure that Tesla is willing to give away their battery chemistry specifics. I'm not saying they won't under the right circumstances but the batteries have other companies involved such as Panasonic. I'm not sure that Tesla can hand away Panasonic secrets as readily as they can hand over their secrets.

Are you saying a couple reporters on the property of an unfinished Gigafactory are going to take photos which could be used to reveal proprietary battery chemistry? I'd love to know how you envision that working out.

Separately, I'd love to know what damaging info the reporters could have released as a result of images that have already been disclosed thru drone footage. I don't see any difference between being on the ground and taking pictures versus doing the same thing 100 ft in the air. If anything, the drone pics offer a better perspective.
 
Are you saying a couple reporters on the property of an unfinished Gigafactory are going to take photos which could be used to reveal proprietary battery chemistry? I'd love to know how you envision that working out.

Separately, I'd love to know what damaging info the reporters could have released as a result of images that have already been disclosed thru drone footage. I don't see any difference between being on the ground and taking pictures versus doing the same thing 100 ft in the air. If anything, the drone pics offer a better perspective.

Are you arguing that the press should be allowed to break the law as long as they can rationalize it? Because, at the end of the day, these guys were where they did not belong and got busted--its seems fairly simple--anything beyond that is simply trying to rationalize bad behavior.

BTW, Tesla considers their battery pack assembly process a trade secret--when you do a factory tour, its something they do not show you and is an example of something that a drone would not reveal.
 
The whole drone thing is totally irrelevant to the discussion here.

I don't think it matters what was on the property, and whether there was anything actually confidential being protected. The issue of whatever might have been recorded on a camera on the property is another issue altogether, and I have no idea what the legal aspects of that are, but this isn't the main issue. The main questions are of trespass and assault.

The fact is they essentially broke into the property, bypassing a "No Trespassing" sign and a fence. Not quite as severe as a break-and-enter into a building, but on the same spectrum. It's private property and they had no right to be there. Regardless of what they were doing there. Being a member of the press doesn't give them a free pass on that.

Things escalated to a much more serious level if the allegations of vehicular assault are true. That's essentially assault with a weapon. Now if this could be plausibly construed as self defense, then they may have a legal defense. Otherwise they could be in very big trouble. Regardless of whether they might be convicted, it sounds like they've got themselves into a big legal mess.
 
What they did was certainly illegal. But from a technical point of view they did no more damage to Tesla by taking pictures than someone who does the same with a drone. They did not steal any trade secrets. There are no batteries being assembled at this site.
 
What they did was certainly illegal. But from a technical point of view they did no more damage to Tesla by taking pictures than someone who does the same with a drone. They did not steal any trade secrets. There are no batteries being assembled at this site.

I disagree.

Drones take overhead shots & after the roof was in place, it severely limited what types of information a drone could gather. Journalists, on the ground, however who have illegally entered the site and are taking pictures? They're getting real info.

You might recall early during Model S production, people captured some small production signs in the background of their pics & analysts were able to extrapolate production data off of that. I don't know what the photographers might have taken pics of, but I am absolutely positive their pics could be far more informative than a drone picture at this point.
 
On the whole drone issue, I agree that it is a whole lot different than on the ground. Putting aside the whole trespassing issue, the most you can get in a drone is through a window, but field of view would be limited. On the ground, you can walk up to the window and take pictures inside or even open it or open doors to get a better view.

Sure if you fly a drone right up a window, maybe you can do something similar, but that would be low enough to fall under the same trespassing claim.
 
The whole drone thing is totally irrelevant to the discussion here.

I don't think it matters what was on the property, and whether there was anything actually confidential being protected. The issue of whatever might have been recorded on a camera on the property is another issue altogether, and I have no idea what the legal aspects of that are, but this isn't the main issue. The main questions are of trespass and assault.

The fact is they essentially broke into the property, bypassing a "No Trespassing" sign and a fence. Not quite as severe as a break-and-enter into a building, but on the same spectrum. It's private property and they had no right to be there. Regardless of what they were doing there. Being a member of the press doesn't give them a free pass on that.

Things escalated to a much more serious level if the allegations of vehicular assault are true. That's essentially assault with a weapon. Now if this could be plausibly construed as self defense, then they may have a legal defense. Otherwise they could be in very big trouble. Regardless of whether they might be convicted, it sounds like they've got themselves into a big legal mess.

It appears that they were not charged with trespass -- in fact the other journalist was apparently not charged at all. It is a bit surprising because I think the trespass charge is a no brainer. I'm guessing they didn't write it because trespass is more or less treated like jaywalking -- technically illegal but rarely cited except in conjunction with other charges.

Battery with a deadly weapon is a very serious felony charge, probably so serious that it is unlikely to stick (I'd imagine it will either plea down to simple battery or less). In addition to self-defense, they might argue that there was no intent to harm (the guy jumped in front of a moving vehicle in the hopes that the driver would stop in time).