I've been fighting a difficult battle lately and I'm very curious as to if anyone else has this problem! night exploring vs. day exploring. any inputs?
where I have been torn lately is going to a place for the first time. nighttime is fun it's scarier I find, more of a rush of adrenaline, less risk of getting spotted going in, but there's higher risk of flashlights and flash seen from windows, pictures come out better during the day.. I really don't know! I'm headed out (maybe) to check out a old elementary school now and I almost want to leave it till it's dark! what to do....

Just be careful, night time exploring can get you a much higher legal charge than simple trespassing. After 9:00 (I think?) trespassing turns into prowling. Which is a much worse crime. :/

I used to like exploring at night, now I'm more of a daytime explorer. Of course there are exceptions, I mean, there's something great about looking out at a city at night, or getting that dim evening light through the partly broken windows of a factory.

But if I had to choose, I'd go day personally.

Posted by Skye_Ann Just be careful, night time exploring can get you a much higher legal charge than simple trespassing. After 9:00 (I think?) trespassing turns into prowling. Which is a much worse crime. :/

I believe the charge is only escalated to prowling when committed on the property of an inhabited dwelling. Exploring a factory or an abandoned house in the middle of a field won't likely fit the legal definition. Regardless, it's a good point to know.

I personally prefer to photograph at night, but some locations are better during the day. I tend to be an opportunistic explorer though, so it usually boils down to pure luck and location.

Trespassing at night
177. Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, loiters or prowls at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 173.

I do my abandonments usually during the day for lighting and my cranes and roofs at night

It all depends, Rampantscyther.
I would rather explore a new location at night to get an insight of what there is and where to go next time I'm there IN THE DAYTIME.

Daytime will work for you if you're doing photography (which some people tend to forget that UE is not centered around photography), but the downside to exploring in the day is the potential to be seen going inside.

I myself usually prefer to go at night.

I am so torn! It is a lot more easy to get spotted going in and that's I think why I do prefer to explore a place for the first time at night. the potential prowling charge is kind of scary though!! I guess it all depends on the situation. (an my limited patience as well lol)

I went to an elementary school in Belleville for the first time today which was quite an exciting old place! and now going to an apparently well known house out in prince edward county. for me the scary old houses are always the most fun at night I don't know what it is. the dark just adds a touch of fear it's a rush :p

day is my go to due to the relative safety and the fact that I don't want to get charged with prowling.

I usually will survey at night or day..

but I usually go internals during day.. the light beam coming through can make for some great photo contrast.

If light painting a dark floor is needed.. its less noticeable to see light through boarded windows then it would be to see the stray light through the boards at night.

Its also easier to see the holes on the floor when there's some form of ambient light in compared to complete darkness relying on flashlight only.

I agree its more noticeable sneaking in during day.. but its safer explore internally once inside. and easier to spot POE. Darkness is easier to get in, but harder to work around inside ( minus rooftopping )

But some locales do better explore/entry in the night.. so its not a black and white answer.

Posted by Skye_Ann Just be careful, night time exploring can get you a much higher legal charge than simple trespassing. After 9:00 (I think?) trespassing turns into prowling. Which is a much worse crime. :/

If you trespass between 9:00PM to 6:00AM (night as defined by criminal code), near a dwelling-house on the same property, without lawful reason to be there, you are committing trespass at night. It's a criminal offence, dual-procedure.

There NEEDS to be a home, (on the same property) and you have to be near it. (although near is up for interpretation by the court) There is legal precedence that abandoned homes are considered dwelling-houses, but incomplete buildings are not.

Day time for me. I've little patience for long exposures...my UE revolves around photography.

Day time for me. I'm patient with my bracketed shots and long exposures for HDR processing. My UE also revolves around photography.

So I'm both philosophically identical and yet technically completely different to tiffers.

Posted by tittynope There is legal precedence that abandoned homes are considered dwelling-houses, but incomplete buildings are not.

Are you able to provide a link to the specific case(s)?? Not that I doubt you, but I do a lot of my exploring at night and this would be very handy to have clarified...

I can't think of any reason to prefer exploring in the dark. The whole point is to see things, I want enough light to see them.

Posted by billmclaugh So I'm both philosophically identical and yet technically completely different to tiffers.

I don't mind bracketing, but...10-15 minute exposures make me want to tear my hair out. Hahaha. I will do a few minutes for one exposure, but anything over 5...meh.

Ever heard of predawning if you don't want to get seen going in, but only like shooting during the day.

I am a fan of pre-dawn infiltration for high traffic/risky places. It's not for everyone. Night explores are obviously more physically hazardous, and you are more likely to be judged as a vandal or dastardly criminal (as opposed to hobby photographer)sneaking around at night if caught. The whole flash thing is not a good idea either lol, especially in unboarded places.

Posted by terapr0 Are you able to provide a link to the specific case(s)??

R. v. DeWolfe (1988), 82 N.S.R.(2d) 175 (CA)

http://en.wikibook...ter#Dwelling_House (It's break and enter specific but the section on Dwelling House is a criminal code definition that applies to all criminal offences that use that wording)

Posted by tittynope R. v. DeWolfe (1988), 82 N.S.R.(2d) 175 (CA) http://en.wikibook...ter#Dwelling_House (It's break and enter specific but the section on Dwelling House is a criminal code definition that applies to all criminal offences that use that wording)

This is interesting. Maybe this is a discussion for the legal thread at the top, but after some searching, I found the court case you cited. The guy broke into a house, apparently drunk, and slept in it. He was charged and convicted of break and enter but he appealed the case on the grounds that the house was vacant and therefore not a "dwelling house" as defined in the Criminal Code. The judge did dismiss it because

although the house was not occupied at the time, it was nevertheless "kept" as a residence. The evidence was that the owner lived next door to the house and that it had been occupied by her son up to a month before this break-in. In the definition of dwelling house the word "kept" is used as an alternative to the word "occupied"... the facts here the house was indeed being kept as a residence.

A judge in a New Brunswick case of B&E (R v Sapier [2005] N.B.J. No. 483) cited this case and elaborated on why it counted as a "dwelling house"

It is apparent that in DeWolfe the traditional use of the structure figured prominently in the determination of its character. Coupled with that was the evidence of the house having been occupied as a dwelling-house up until the month before the offence. The temporal connection of use of the house as a home so shortly before the commission of the offence assisted in determining the legal character of the house at the relevant time as being a dwelling-house. 27 There are instances in which a house may have been traditionally used as a dwelling-house and then lost that characterization owing to it not having been used as such for a period of time. This period of non-use can, in some circumstances, break the temporal connection between its traditional use as a home and its legal character at the time of the offence. R. v. Paquet [1978] O.J. No. 980; 43 C.C.C. (2d) 23 (O.C.A.) provides an example of just such a case. In that instance, the house had been traditionally used as a dwelling-house. However, Martin J.A. noted at paragraph 2-3: "The house had not been occupied for a period of about three years, and it had fallen into a somewhat dilapidated condition following a fire some two years prior to the incident out of which this charge arises. Several windows were broken, and one of them was boarded up. The place was dirty, and there was a high growth of weeds around the porch. The appellants testified that they had passed the house the day before the events in question and concluded that it had been abandoned. They drove to the house the next evening in a truck, and removed a stove, two television sets, some rugs and some photographs. The stove was approximately 20 years old and had a burnt out fire box and required a new lining. One of the television sets was operable, but the other had some parts missing." In concluding that at the relevant time the house was not being kept or occupied as a dwelling-house Martin J.A. made the following observations at paragraphs 8-10: ... In Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 21st ed. at p. 107, there appears the following statement: The dwelling must be habitually used for purposes of residence."

So in other words, if it really is abandoned, it's not a "dwelling house" and therefore not B&E. Almost every house I've ever explored or seen photographed here therefore would not run someone the risk of B&E either. I knew my education in law would be useful for something.

good job and thanks for clarifying that ;D