CBS meter readers could easily end up behind bars.

I suppose I could offer a slightly more extensive interpretation of the regulations here...

We find ourselves in a situation where some low-level agent from CBS shows up at the door and attempts to enter someone's home using various different methods. The spectrum of these tactics is actually quite broad, ranging from the more subtle approaches—which essentially involve deception and threats regarding various citations if you don't grant them entry...

Then there are the somewhat more primitive methods, such as entering an unlocked residence or perhaps wedging a foot in the doorway with the specific intention of forcing their way inside.

Now, looking closely, there have been some minor amendments to the Penal Code that quite significantly impact those bureaucrats over at CBS.

That small change involves the concept of a "responsible person." Here is how the U.S. legal framework might define such a role:

"(6) A responsible person is a natural person who manages the affairs of a legal entity or is explicitly or effectively entrusted with performing duties within the scope of operations of a legal entity, a government body, or a local or regional government unit."

CBS functions as a legal entity with public authorities, and their collection agents are considered responsible persons entrusted with tasks within that entity's jurisdiction—specifically, monitoring those obligated to pay fees and managing those who have deregistered receivers. They even carry their own identification cards. This constitutes the exercise of public authority.

So, when we examine their entry into homes or business premises, and their failure to withdraw upon request, we are looking at a qualified form of a criminal offense that is prosecuted ex officio, rather than by motion, as was the case under the previous system.

Violation of the sanctity of the home and business premises

Section 141.

(1) Whoever unauthorizedly enters another's home, business premises, or a closed or enclosed space belonging to said home or business premises, or fails to depart therefrom upon the request of an authorized person,
shall be punished by imprisonment for up to one year.

(2) If the criminal offense described in paragraph 1 of this section is committed by a public official in the performance of their duties or a responsible person in the performance of public authority,
they shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.

(3) The criminal offense described in paragraph 1 of this section is prosecuted upon motion.

Similarly, there are various threats and persuasion techniques used by collectors, suggesting that one must let them in or face a citation and subsequent wage garnishment in the coming months.

Bluffing with various detection devices, or claiming that "neighbors reported you"—these are all forms of deception and unlawful behavior.

Here is what the law dictates regarding such matters:

Abuse of position and authority

Section 291.

(1) A public or responsible person who exploits their position or authority, exceeds the limits of their authority, or fails to perform their duty, thereby obtaining a benefit for themselves or another person or causing harm to another,,
shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to five years.

Harm can be both material and non-material. In this context, it includes violations of privacy, reputation, or emotional distress (more specifically, harassment).

Actual harm does not necessarily need to occur; for this specific offense, the attempt itself is punishable because the penalty allows for up to 5 years in prison.

Attempt

Section 34.

(1) Whoever, with the intent to commit a criminal offense, undertakes an action that immediately precedes the realization of the essence of the crime in terms of space and time, shall be punished for an attempt if the crime carries a penalty of five years or more imprisonment, or if the law explicitly provides for punishment of an attempt.

So, I suppose it is possible to legally hold these arrogant CBS collectors accountable after all. 👍

Sandra Green4 said:I suppose I could offer a slightly more extensive interpretation of the regulations here...

We find ourselves in a situation where some low-level agent from CBS shows up at the door and attempts to enter someone's home using various different methods. The spectrum of these tactics is actually quite broad, ranging from the more subtle approaches—which essentially involve deception and threats regarding various citations if you don't grant them entry...

Then there are the somewhat more primitive methods, such as entering an unlocked residence or perhaps wedging a foot in the doorway with the specific intention of forcing their way inside.

Now, looking closely, there have been some minor amendments to the Penal Code that quite significantly impact those bureaucrats over at CBS.

That small change involves the concept of a "responsible person." Here is how the U.S. legal framework might define such a role:

"(6) A responsible person is a natural person who manages the affairs of a legal entity or is explicitly or effectively entrusted with performing duties within the scope of operations of a legal entity, a government body, or a local or regional government unit."

CBS functions as a legal entity with public authorities, and their collection agents are considered responsible persons entrusted with tasks within that entity's jurisdiction—specifically, monitoring those obligated to pay fees and managing those who have deregistered receivers. They even carry their own identification cards. This constitutes the exercise of public authority.

So, when we examine their entry into homes or business premises, and their failure to withdraw upon request, we are looking at a qualified form of a criminal offense that is prosecuted ex officio, rather than by motion, as was the case under the previous system.

Violation of the sanctity of the home and business premises

Section 141.

(1) Whoever unauthorizedly enters another's home, business premises, or a closed or enclosed space belonging to said home or business premises, or fails to depart therefrom upon the request of an authorized person,
shall be punished by imprisonment for up to one year.

(2) If the criminal offense described in paragraph 1 of this section is committed by a public official in the performance of their duties or a responsible person in the performance of public authority,
they shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.

(3) The criminal offense described in paragraph 1 of this section is prosecuted upon motion.

Similarly, there are various threats and persuasion techniques used by collectors, suggesting that one must let them in or face a citation and subsequent wage garnishment in the coming months.

Bluffing with various detection devices, or claiming that "neighbors reported you"—these are all forms of deception and unlawful behavior.

Here is what the law dictates regarding such matters:

Abuse of position and authority

Section 291.

(1) A public or responsible person who exploits their position or authority, exceeds the limits of their authority, or fails to perform their duty, thereby obtaining a benefit for themselves or another person or causing harm to another,,
shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to five years.

Harm can be both material and non-material. In this context, it includes violations of privacy, reputation, or emotional distress (more specifically, harassment).

Actual harm does not necessarily need to occur; for this specific offense, the attempt itself is punishable because the penalty allows for up to 5 years in prison.

Attempt

Section 34.

(1) Whoever, with the intent to commit a criminal offense, undertakes an action that immediately precedes the realization of the essence of the crime in terms of space and time, shall be punished for an attempt if the crime carries a penalty of five years or more imprisonment, or if the law explicitly provides for punishment of an attempt.

So, I suppose it is possible to legally hold these arrogant CBS collectors accountable after all. 👍

It’s not really news, though; maybe people are just a bit more aware of their rights these days.

The collectors never really had any real authority to begin with, and they usually backed off if they ran into a homeowner who actually knew the law.
Personally, over the last 15 years or so, I’ve had maybe six or seven verbal standoffs where the collector just tucked tail and left, without even bothering to file a report against me.

I have this feeling that lately, they might have even gone through some kind of training run by their legal department about what they can and can't do, and how to handle different scenarios.

And I’m pretty sure most of them have realized it's much smarter to go find some other naive victim rather than end up in court arguing with someone who knows how to fight back.

Timothy Nelson5 said:It’s not really news, though; maybe people are just a bit more aware of their rights these days.

The collectors never really had any real authority to begin with, and they usually backed off if they ran into a homeowner who actually knew the law.
Personally, over the last 15 years or so, I’ve had maybe six or seven verbal standoffs where the collector just tucked tail and left, without even bothering to file a report against me.

I have this feeling that lately, they might have even gone through some kind of training run by their legal department about what they can and can't do, and how to handle different scenarios.

And I’m pretty sure most of them have realized it's much smarter to go find some other naive victim rather than end up in court arguing with someone who knows how to fight back.

They weren't allowed to enter a private residence before either, but by introducing the concept of a "responsible party" into the penal code, it seems that CBS collectors have become significantly more liable under criminal law lately.

So, it isn't just about entering a home anymore; there are also various threats, manipulative persuasion techniques involving lies, spying, or the unauthorized collection of personal data, and so on.

All of that falls under exceeding the limits of their authority, which is quite clearly detailed in Article 291.

I heard those collectors aren't even actual CBS employees; they're just retirees working on freelance contracts. That way, CBS can wash their hands of whatever shady tactics they use and claim they aren't responsible.

Honestly, you just need to douse them in some disinfectant, shut the door, and be done with it.