The Louisiana Court of Appeal has affirmed the dismissal of a legal case brought by John-Paul Moore Young against the City of Shreveport and its mayor, Tom Arceneaux. This ruling affects property owners in Shreveport and addresses how trespassing laws are enforced in the area. The court's decision clarifies the legal standing required for individuals to challenge municipal policies regarding trespassing.
Young, a police juror in Caddo Parish, filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on February 26, 2025, concerning the interpretation of Louisiana's criminal trespass statute, La. R.S. 14:63. He claimed that the Shreveport Police Department (SPD) was not enforcing the law effectively, which he believed was putting his properties at risk. The case was filed after Young experienced multiple trespassing incidents at his properties, including one where a trespasser caused significant damage.
The dispute began when Young reported a trespass to the SPD in July 2022. He provided security camera footage of the trespasser, who was recognized by Officer J.D. Claitt as a known serial trespasser. However, Officer Claitt informed Young that she could not arrest the trespasser without his concurrent notice to vacate the property, citing SPD policy. This led Young to question the legality of the policy and the interpretation of the trespass statute.
In March 2025, Mayor Arceneaux issued a memorandum stating that SPD officers could not arrest trespassers without prior notice from property owners. Young's amended petition sought to challenge this interpretation, arguing that probable cause could be established without such notice. However, the trial court dismissed his case, stating that Young lacked the legal standing to bring the suit.
The trial court's decision was based on several exceptions raised by the City, including no right of action and lack of standing. The court found that Young's claims did not demonstrate a specific property right that would allow him to challenge the enforcement of the law. The court noted that merely owning property does not grant an individual the right to compel government action or challenge municipal policies.
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, with Judge Robinson presiding, upheld the lower court's ruling. The court stated, "The trial court did not err in sustaining the exception of no right of action," affirming that Young's situation was not unique enough to warrant legal action against the City. The court emphasized that Young's grievances were shared by many property owners in the Highland neighborhood and did not constitute a special interest that would give him standing.
The court also addressed the issue of whether Young had a cause of action. It determined that a justiciable controversy did not exist, as Young's claims were speculative and did not present an immediate and substantial dispute. The court concluded that the trial court's ruling was appropriate, stating, "A declaratory judgment interpreting the notice provisions of La. R.S. 14:63 would not have provided a remedy that significantly impacted a finding of probable cause to make arrests."
This ruling has implications for property owners in Shreveport and potentially sets a precedent regarding the enforcement of trespassing laws. It clarifies that property owners must demonstrate a specific and individual interest in order to challenge municipal policies. The decision may discourage similar lawsuits by individuals who believe they have been wronged by local law enforcement policies.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Young will seek to appeal the decision to a higher court. The court did not provide details on any related cases pending or whether there are plans for further legal action. However, the ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in challenging municipal policies and the importance of having a clear legal standing in such matters.