What is trespassing (legally)?
 

I am all for privacy. Post a "no trespassing" sign and you eliminate me from knocking on your door 90% of the time. If my life or families life is in danger... sorry, I am going to inconvenience you probably...

BUT, the other thread got me wondering if anyone REALLY knows the law of "Not Trespassing"?

The supreme court ruled long ago that it's legal for people to knock on your door in a open and peaceable manner. Here is a quote with a reference to to the law. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...h/0010065.html

So for your own benefit, you may want to think twice before you shoot them.

Now my question is: Does anyone know of anyone successfully prosecuting someone on a "No Trespassing" charge that is openly and peaceably" seeking to knock on a door?

Seems pretty vague and convoluted toward many of the things I've heard about "no trespassing" in the past...

I really dont see how the law cited has anything to do with tresspassing law

You post your property with 'no trespass' signs to keep from establishing a duty.

The three classes of people duty may be extended to are: trespassers, service people and invited guests.

With trespassers you may not intentionally harm them.

With service people (milkman, paperboy, mailman, etc) you have to notifiy of them of a defect that could injure them (hey buddy, watch out for that crack in the sidewalk type of thing).

With invited guests you have to fix the defect or they WILL own your property. If people ask to hunt your property they are invited guests if you agree. Best not to agree!

The person who knocks on your door may be treated as a trespasser. You can't shoot him/her but you don't have to worry if they trip over the kids tricycle.

All states will have different laws regarding trespass - wiki says in Texas you can shoot 'em after dark but I don't think that counts as legal advice! lol

LOL you can shoot them after darkin EVERY state.



Gives ya ALL NIGHT to get them buried

Sorry, I made it in italics, but messed up the bold. I'll fix it so you can easier see what the court said.


If you are saying that the italicized portion of the law has nothing to do with trespassing, what other instance do you think this was in reference to? The original court case made a claim that the officer was trespassing on the plaintiff's property.

Here is another instance where there is a no trespassing sign posted, but the courts said that doesn't meet the qualification as laid out in the 1964 case.

and here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...917maj&invol=3

Merely tacking up signs that say No trespassing mean nothing. They must be registered at the courthouse to be of worth.
Also depends on how powerful your 911 is. here they they "own" your land.so can enter and disarm at will.
Suemo

Historically in parts of the South that may be misconstrued as ' you can shoot them IF they're dark...'

People are allowed to 'knock on your door' or 'ring your bell' to communicate with you at the front door. You are not obligated to reply.

One way to keep people away from your home if you have a long driveway is to install an intercom system and gate at the entrance to the driveway. If your 'doorbell' is at the driveway post, then they have no legitimate reason to go farther than that to 'knock' on your door. Otherwise they have a right to come up your driveway to your front door.

That fits in with the law as I see it above.

"Hammett attempts to distinguish the instant case from these
precedents on the ground that he posted a "no trespassing"
sign at the entrance to his driveway, which Hammett contends
was sufficient to apprise the public of his desire to keep others
off his property. The thrust of Hammett's argument comes
from our statement in Davis suggesting that officers may only
enter the curtilage of a home to speak with its occupants in the
absence of "express orders from the person in possession
against any possible trespass. . . ." Davis , 327 F.2d at 303.
This argument, however, is inapposite to the facts at hand.

[6] While it is true that Hammett posted a no trespassing
sign at the entrance of his driveway, the officers were
unaware of the sign because they did not approach the resi-
dence by way of the driveway. Rather, the officers
approached Hammett's residence by crossing an area of land
directly between the landing site for the helicopter and Ham-
mett's front door. The photographs provided by Hammett
illustrate an unobstructed path from the landing site to the
home, on which no signs were posted. Hammett's allegation
that the officers chose this path to "intentionally avoid[ ]
learning of Hammett's expressed and open desire to ward off
trespassers" is unsubstantiated. The photographs supplied by
Hammett clearly illustrate that the area where the officers set
the helicopter down was the closest open area to Hammett's
home and, as such, offered a logical landing site. Thus, we
reject Hammett's arguments on this point."

More specifically...

"The thrust of Hammett's argument comes
from our statement in Davis suggesting that officers may only
enter the curtilage of a home to speak with its occupants in the
absence of "express orders from the person in possession
against any possible trespass. . . ." Davis , 327 F.2d at 303.
This argument, however, is inapposite to the facts at hand."

This indicates to me that had Hammet posted no-trespassing signs so as there was no entrance to his property without being able to see these signs the ruling might have gone differently.

In this case the cops had probable cause and were not given "express orders from the person in possession
against any possible trespass."

I don't think this case really applies to your every day, garden variety solicitor.

Posted registered at the court house 6 foot fence all around Locked gates. If they enter its tresspassing Ecept for Emergency personel who may need to enter. But Pipeline crews need to advise as well as any other service providers such as telephone cable satalite and others. Thats why they give times to be there. And ask about Dogs. I have no trouble with tresspassers as there are 3 keys out to my gate, Mine my brothers and A nephew.

ZealYouthGuy, all of your citations are about law enforcement officers entering property.

It is a little disingenuous to apply rulings about LEOs to obnoxious pamphleteers.

For those in Texas:

PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS
§ 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is
adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion
of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected
with the structure or vehicle.
(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended
for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade,
manufacture, ornament, or use.
(3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which
any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in
the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such
devices as are classified as "habitation."

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion
of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a
felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other
than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a
habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation
with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed
or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks
into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer
carried on a rail car is a part of the rail car.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
unless the vehicle or part of the vehicle broken into or entered is
a rail car, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor entered a rail car or any part of a rail car and was at
that time an employee or a representative of employees exercising a
right under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.).

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight
inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark
is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet
from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other
than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a
crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the
process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time
of entry.
(3) "Shelter center" has the meaning assigned by
Section 51.002, Human Resources Code.
(4) "Forest land" means land on which the trees are
potentially valuable for timber products.
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by
Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(6) "Superfund site" means a facility that:
(A) is on the National Priorities List
established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. Section 9605); or
(B) is listed on the state registry established
under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code.
(7) "Critical infrastructure facility" means one of
the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical
barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders:
(A) a chemical manufacturing facility;
(B) a refinery;
(C) an electrical power generating facility,
substation, switching station, electrical control center, or
electrical transmission or distribution facility;
(D) a water intake structure, water treatment
facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
(E) a natural gas transmission compressor
station;
(F) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage
facility;
(G) a telecommunications central switching
office;
(H) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking
terminal, or other freight transportation facility;
(I) a gas processing plant, including a plant
used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas;
or
(J) a transmission facility used by a federally
licensed radio or television station.

Theoffense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(1) the offense is committed:
(A) in a habitation or a shelter center;
(B) on a Superfund site; or
(C) on or in a critical infrastructure facility;
or
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his
person during the commission of the offense.
(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent
or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing
or other form, the person: (1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;
(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of
the boundary of the land when apprehended; and
(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or
received notice to depart but failed to do so. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

Text of subsec. (g) as added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1093.
(g) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other
weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon.
Text of subsec. (g) as added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1337.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor entered a railroad switching yard or any part of a
railroad switching yard and was at that time an employee or a
representative of employees exercising a right under the Railway
Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.).

Not at all, the law ruling from 1964 which is quoted in these law cases and was a law case itself says:

We recognized this principle in Davis v. United
States, 327 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1964), stating that anyone may
"openly and peaceably knock [on an individual's door] with
the honest intent of asking questions of the occupant thereof
-- whether the questioner be a pollster, a salesman, or an offi-
cer of the law.

So perhaps the District Court justices are being disingenuous, but I am not.

YOUR TAKING A PRETTY BROAD STROKE BY THAT STATEMENT. EVERY STATE IS DIFFERENT

Notice this statement>>>>here they they "own" your land.so can enter and disarm at will.
Yes it is different even per county/ district. "here" if you are going to shoot someone they better be in the house or you are guilty of murder no matter why they were on your property.

In Texas, you can paint your boundaries with purple paint... no signs, no registering, no nothin... just paint. And the paint means no trespassing.

I've heard about people suing and obtaining possession after hurting theirselves... usually in other regions of the country. NEVER heard of it around here... most trespassers are too afraid of dying if caught in the act.

I've never heard of it in Texas either, so the laws must vary from place to place. Either that, or some lawyers and judges were doing some very illegal things...

I'll go back up and highlight the part about painting with purple paint.

By the way, what I posted above was taken directly from the Texas Penal Code website.

We have "No Trespassing" signs along the property line, but at the entrances I took some "BEWARE OF THE DOG" signs and cut off the "THE DOG" part. My signs now say, in bright bold orange letters, "BEWARE" :D I think that about covers it. No one has ever knocked on the door :shrug:

Big dogs will keep trespassers away. Then you don't have to wonder what the law says, they won't be there to bother you.

[QUOTE=[B]If people ask to hunt your property they are invited guests if you agree. Best not to agree![/B]



In Wisconsin, there are laws that protect the landowners from court action from hunters. They have been tested in courts and have been held up.

I am sure it varies from state to state

I think you may have missed this important piece of the puzzle;

"The thrust of Hammett's argument comes
from our statement in Davis suggesting that officers may only
enter the curtilage of a home to speak with its occupants in the
absence of "express orders from the person in possession
against any possible trespass. . . ." Davis , 327 F.2d at 303.
This argument, however, is inapposite to the facts at hand."


More specifically;

""express orders from the person in possession
against any possible trespass. . . ." Davis , 327 F.2d at 303."

[QUOTE=travlnusa]Are fishermen hunters? How about treasure hunters? Or the geo-cacher who asks permission to cross your property? Or morel hunters. Does Wisconsin law protect the landowner from these classes as well?

How about the guy who asks permission to use your land to parachute jump on. Locally around 20 years ago a farmer gave permission for a parachute group to land land on his farm and one of them broke his leg. As you might guess he was awarded the farm. His status was 'invited guest' and no one told him the land would be hard.

I don't object to hunters. I used to do my share of it. If anyone asks permission to hunt I make it clear they are not invited guests and they are not service people. That only leaves trespassers. While I won't call the sheriff on them I don't worry if they break a leg or shoot each other either.

If you decided to permit access to your property because the guy is a hunter and is exempt from normal landowners duties because of Wisconsin law do you now have to worry about what he is hunting? If he is a pheasant hunter and happens to shoot a deer out of season did you give him permission to use your property for this 'illegal' activity? Maybe you are now an accomplice?

[QUOTE=palani]The law does cover fishermen. As far as the rest goes, I would tend to doubt it.

The hunter is repsonsible for what they harvest, not the landowner.

Forgive me for posting without having thought out all the examples you cited. I will refrain from doing so in the future.

No, really I didn't. I think you missed the part in the Friedeli case that quotes this case:

The existence of such a sign by itself does not withdraw permission to enter
access routes to a house or other portions of the curtilage impliedly open
to the public.8

Again not an apples to apples comparision.

"Contrary to Friedli's claims below and on appeal, prior to entering
the home the detectives were in a place that was impliedly open to the
public. The easement road provided access to and was shared by four other
residences. There was no closed gate or other barriers, no 'No
Trespassing' sign at the entrance to the easement road, and no fences
around Friedli's individual property. Further, the officers did not
deviate from a direct route to Friedli's residence in employing a
legitimate 'knock and talk' based on a tip from his landlord. Although the
trial court did find that Friedli probably had a 'No Trespassing' sign on a
tree in his yard, it found that the officers did not see it.7 The
existence of such a sign by itself does not withdraw permission to enter
access routes to a house or other portions of the curtilage impliedly open
to the public.8 "


Note the N-T sign was "on a tree in his yard" and not at the entrance to his driveway.

Also note where they specifically reference "no 'No Trespassing' sign at the entrance to the easement road"

From any of the cited cases it is not made clear that a properly "posted" property can be entered by any individual especially a non LEO.

All of these cases concern LEO's with at least some "probable cause".

Not the same situation as me legally posting my property with the intent of keeping solicitors from bothering me.

[QUOTE=travlnusa]Please don't let any of my comments affect your posting. I have had over 50 years of observing to develop opinions and that is all they are.

The general view of this board seems to be that trespassers belong in a class that should be shot. Speaking as a perpetual trespasser I don't share this view. A maxim of Law is that possession is, as it were, the position of the foot. You might own a piece of paper that claims you own everything in sight but all you possess at any time can be covered by your feet.

What is "curtilage of a home "?

These trespassing threads are always interesting. I came across this "Open field doctrine" while researching the Indiana guys case as outlined in the other thread. I had not heard of the "open field" thing before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_fields_doctrine

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment04/04.html

I hope everyone understands that I wish "no trespassing" included and covered as much as I thought it did in the past, but I think knowledge is strength and if you move your "door" for knocking on with a gate and fences... then it seems like you are in a better position to defend your right to privacy.

The Indiana video... I've been looking up info and haven't found ANYTHING. Don't you think that's strange? If the guy had a fence and gate, I wonder what would have happened? Would the Cop have let the lady climb the gate/fence? Would he have "ordered" the gentleman to open it?

The real America is a scary place. The logic of "if you don't have something to hide" by the cop is common among many people... in fact many on this board.

My point of this thread is to make sure everyone knows a few signs or purple paint may theoretically "protect" you, but the interpretation of those laws seems far different than the intent of those laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

That's fine Greg, if you believe that and feel secure in it... it doesn't really affect me either way.

I would be interested, the next time someone disobeys your sign and knocks on your door in seeing the results of your prosecution of them on trespassing charges.

ZYG,

Am I to understand that if you see a sign at the entrance to a property that says No Trespassing that you would still enter for the purpose of talking to them about your religious beliefs?

If so, seems to me that their intentions to not have uninvited guests was pretty clear and your ignoring their wishes is blatantly disrespectful. Personally, I don't need someone at my door professing their goodness and religion when they have so obviously thought so little of my wishes as to ignore my sign. In my eyes, someone who does this has zero credibility.

Just my opinion.

Why did you start a thread about the legality and definition of trespassing if "it doesn't affect me (you) either way"?

The fact is, it does affect you if you are going to be walking past N-T signs to solicit homeowners.

Honestly I do not KNOW the correct answer but the cites you reference are not good enough to make the case that you (non LEO with no probable cause to investigate) can ignore N-T signs and walk up someone's driveway to knock on their door.

Even if it turns out that you can, it still does not negate the fact that ethically an individual should respect the privacy of others .

Not at all... I got to reading about rights and court cases because of this issue and thread. I have stated copiously and consistently that I don't trespass knowingly on people's property.

As far as zero credibility... nice thought and paragraph but not relevant to anything I've said.

In Wisconsin, not too many years ago, the law was changed so that property does not have to be posted with signs, that a person is trespassing even if there are no signs, if he crosses the property line onto your property.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...5section2b.pdf
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/aae336/Readings/TRESPASS.pdf

Thanks for the clarification. I wish everyone was that respectful of NT signs.

This whole area of people entering your property has gotten me to do some research too. We've moved so far away from the spirit of the constitution. I'm less concerned with private individuals who come on my property than I am with representatives of the govt that think they have the rights to do whatever they want. I'm generally a law abiding person so I really have nothing to hide. However, based on principal, no govt employee can enter my property without my permission and unless I know their intentions are good, they won't get my permission.

I tell folks my insurance policy is a backhoe and the back 40... after that info sinks in, I tell em they'd best be careful... If someone were to injure themselves, for whatever reasons, permission or not, and they wanted to sue, I do'a believe that I could trespass against them, and hurt myself, and countersue, pretty dang quickly.

Or they could just disappear. SSS.

I'm pretty friendly to daytime trespassers, regardless whether they're innocent or up to no good. Every night time visitor, unexpected (even my family :rolleyes: ) is greeted aggressively, till their intentions are known. The unwelcome ones usually head straight home to change their shorts, or call the sheriff. Had a call once from the sheriff, and he agreed with my side of the story, and asked me to please don't scare em so much... :p

And that's really the thrust of it all, for me personally.

On my land, if there is a fence and gate, does that eliminate the showdown on that Indiana video?

My gut feeling is that a cop is going to do what they want to do and the rest of the system is going to support them.

Bob, in your very first post starting this thread you stated the following:

I am all for privacy. Post a "no trespassing" sign and you eliminate me from knocking on your door 90% of the time. If my life or families life is in danger... sorry, I am going to inconvenience you probably...

This means, at least to me, that you are willing to trespass on someone elses property regardless of whether it is posted or not.... at least 10% of the time based on your decision that your interests are more important than the property owners desire not to have you intrude on them.

I don't have a problem with that (in the circumstances you describe) as long as you accept that some people may choose to respond to your inconvenience in a less than receptive manner.

You've been to our house (still haven't convinced you to visit the farm <G>) and I'm sure you noticed our proximity to the turnpike and the lack of any other homes in our immediate area. We generally get people coming to our door 4-6 times a year because they broke down,ran out of gas, were in an accident,got stuck because of a storm, etc. We may be cautious but we've never failed to provide assistance - it may not be what the person is asking/demanding. For example, if they are saying they want in our house at 4am it's not going to happen. They can stay on the porch until the authorities arrive.

This is a lot different than someone coming up trying to evangalize.

Mike