What if we increase the light intensity? You can go all the way up to when the house bursts into flames, and retinal damage will happen long before that.
What if we change the frequency of the light? You can cause retinal damage quite fast with strong UV light and the victim wouldn't even know that it's happening to avert their eyes.
I guess "trespass" would not be applicable, but assault surely will.
However, I don't think it's a weak analysis given the question the court had to answer.
They weren't asked "Can your neighbor get away with shining any light on you or your property, no matter how intense?" but rather "Does shining a light on a person's property count as 'Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual' for purposes of this specific Michigan statute that defines 'unconsented contact' that would support a nondomestic PPO"?
In fact, Michigan state law and the Dearborn, Michigan local ordinances (like numerous other state and local laws) do separately prohibit the use of lasers to injure/harass (at least under certain circumstances): https://www.laserpointersafety.com/rules-general/uslaws/usla....
At some level, we all have to get along, and we all have to accept that our neighbours actions are going to affect us in myriad small ways.
I’m all for critical examination and regulation of externalities inflicted on third parties as a result of private activity, but if we start counting photons, I worry that we’ve lost the plot and are simply caving to people who don’t actually want to live in society with others.
I have no idea what the truth of the matter in this case is, but reading the appeal, the guy just sounds like a crank who got a new neighbours who live differently than he does, and he doesn’t like it.
Many such cases, if my previous work experience in the criminal justice system is any indication.
