Legal Controversy Over Alleged Obstruction of Public Thoroughfare in Apache County
**Apache County, Arizona** – A local resident, Joseph Lathus, is facing charges of obstructing a public thoroughfare, but the circumstances surrounding the case raise significant questions about the validity of these allegations under Arizona law.
Incident Overview:
On March 27, 2023, Christopher McHenry reported to the Apache County Sheriff’s Office that County Road N3543 was fenced off and had a locked gate, preventing access to his cabin which is an uninhabited shed without utilities. Deputies arrived at the scene and, within minutes, lifted the gate off its hinges, gaining entry without any significant delay. This action was repeated on March 28, 2023, further demonstrating that access to the property could be easily achieved.
Key Arguments:
1. Ease of Access:
- The deputies' ability to lift the gate off its hinges within seconds on two separate occasions indicates that the gate did not present a substantial obstruction. On March 27, 2023, at 4:53 PM, and again on March 28, 2023, at 2:08 PM, the deputies accessed the property quickly and without difficulty. Similarly, the county code inspector was able to enter and exit the property without issues, demonstrating that the gate was not a barrier to human access.
2. Intended Purpose of the Gate and Lock:
- The lock and gate were designed to manage livestock movement, not to obstruct public access. The lock’s primary function was to keep the gates closed against high winds and to prevent cattle from pushing them open, consistent with the needs of open range management. The fence, a typical four-wire barbed wire setup, is standard for cattle control but does not provide significant security against human entry.
3. Non-Thoroughfare Nature of the Roads:
- The roads in question are dead-end and cul-de-sac roads, primarily used for access to specific properties. They do not facilitate continuous traffic flow through a network, which is a key characteristic of public thoroughfares. Additionally, these roads are maintained by Mr. Lathus, not by the county, further indicating their status as private access roads rather than public thoroughfares.
4. Lack of Evidence
- There is no clear evidence that Mr. Lathus installed the lock or intended to obstruct access. Other lot owners have removed the lock or simply lift the gate off its hinges like the Apache County Sheriff’s did multiple times, demonstrating that access to the roads has not been significantly restricted by Mr. Lathus.
Legal Implications:
Under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2906, obstructing a public thoroughfare involves rendering a highway or public passageway impassable or unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous. The quick access gained by law enforcement and the county code inspector demonstrates that the gate did not meet these criteria. The roads' design, usage, and maintenance further support the argument that they do not qualify as public thoroughfares under the law.
**Conclusion:**
The charges against Joseph Lathus for obstructing a public thoroughfare appear to be unsupported by the evidence and the relevant legal definitions. The ease of access to the property, the intended purpose of the lock and fencing, and the nature of the roads all indicate that there was no significant obstruction. As such, the case raises important questions about the application of Arizona's obstruction statutes and the protection of individual rights in property management.
