Here’s a whole websitedevoted to discussing applicable laws and court cases.
There’s an interesting phrase that jumped out at me:
“…the **least restrictive alternative available **to accomplish the legitimate governmental interests of protecting residential privacy and preventing crime.” (emphasis mine)
IANAL but I think “the least restrictive alternative available” would not be detaining tresspassers against their will until the police arrive.
So laughable that it seems to substantially jibe with this:
Watchtower v. Stratton (2002) found a law that required door-to-door solicitors to register to be a violation of the First Amendment. Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) found a tax on religious solicitors to be a violation of the First Amendment. Martin v. Struthers (1943) held that a ban on door-to-door solicitation was a violation of the First Amendment.
Schneider v. Irvington (1939):
All these cases are based on the principle that door-to-door canvassing is a free speech right, although one that might be subject to some limits.
So, yeah, I think it’s hardly laughable to say that a government’s imposition of criminal consequences (authorizing a citizen’s arrest) implicates the First Amendment rights of a door-to-door solicitor (and I was generous enough to say “skirting the line”).
Richard Parker, you know better. That has nothing to do with the First Amendment rights of the people doing the “free speaking,” and you know it. I was not asserting that the First Amendment was not involved in any way with the case, though if my language wasn’t perfectly precise enough for you to discern that, my apologies (most people understand how to distinguish an arguement adressing some issue from the issue under discussion).
Does the law consider there to be a difference between freely walking up to someone’s front door and knocking, and climbing over a barbed wire fence with a locked gate before doing so? I imagine that it does; however, I’d like to know the specifics. Obviously, a person can’t claim they didn’t know they were trespassing if they had to circumvent a physical barrier to entry. If they do circumvent a barrier, is that considered not just trespassing, but breaking and entering?
For that matter, how substantial does the barrier have to be? Does it matter to the law if the fence surrounding your property is 8 feet high or 2 feet high?
Oh, c’mon. You wrote, “Pruneyard says NOTHING about the First Amendment, or even its application to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.” You even capitalized “NOTHING,” for effect. Surely you can find some Gauderian amusement in correcting someone while yourself misstating the holding of the case.
usually to “break and enter” you need to break and enter the dwelling, not just the property line. there may be different statutory offenses for circumventing/disabling a security feature on property
as for substantialness, it’s a matter of what a “reasonable person” would think the fence meant. Cute picket fence with an un-padlocked door leading to a path to your front door? Probably more ornamental than “git the f off mah land”
You said, and I quote:
The cases in question have involved PRIOR restraint upon people by the government on the activity of going door-to-door, in such a way as to effectively prohibit them. That is NOT the same thing as saying that I have to let you approach me. As indicated in Gfactor’s analysis, if I simply put up a “NO SOLICITORS (THIS MEANS YOU, YOU CRAZY JEHOVAHS WITNESSES!)” sign, that’s likely sufficient to allow the state to enforce my request that you don’t approach me. Notice the difference.
For those who aren’t getting the difference:
Case 1: Government official stands at my gate and tells door-to-door solicitor, “Don’t approach this person, they may not want to hear from you.”
Case 2: Government official stands at my gate and, after door-to-door solicitor ignores my specific posted request that he stay off my property, arrests said solicitor, saying, “This person told you they didn’t want to hear from you.”
I find some Gauderian amusement, yes. Had I realized you weren’t being serious, other than to poke fun at the breadth of my wording, I would have laughed and :smack:ed. :o
Kimmy_Gibbler, attempting to respond to that assertion by saying, in effect: “In California, that’s not true” is a bit silly, given that this is not a thread specific to California, and given that the topic generally under discussion constitutionally is the effect of the First/Fourteenth Amendments on door-to-door solicitation. I mean, yeah, it’s true, but so what?
So I still assert that your responsory citation is nothing more than stinky red herring. 
How about not criminal but civil damages? How about a sign over the doorbell button which says something like:
Then you can answer the door by saying “where’s my $100?”.
Unenforceable.
Depends on the jurisdiction. If there is a local ordinance then generally there would be no arrest, just a summons. If you tried to hold someone for something minor like an ordinance violation you would probably be arrested for criminal restraint.
I appreciate the lawyers taking time to quote the law.
I think the mistake people make is to have a garden path and a front door.
Mini-moats, people. Drawbridges. Portcullises. 
That never seems to work for me when I get traffic tickets. “I’m sorry officer, I never saw the sign with the posted speed limit.”
That’s actually interesting. I doubt it’s enforceable, but IME door-to-door witnesses seem to be easily confused. A sign charging all visitors $100 for the priviledge of knocking on your door might just be confusing enough for them to avoid your door in the future. At the very least they’d think you were nutty enough to cause them headaches if they walked away and you threatened to send them to collections etc.
No need to threaten violence, just threaten them with bureaucracy! :eek:
1)You have to apply or a licence in order to drive, and that involves signing a piece of paper saying that you agree that you need to look out for signs and that the onus to do so is entirely yours. IOW by applying for a licence you placed all the reposnsibility on yourself. Walking the street doesn’t require any such licence.
2)Admitting that you didn’t notice the sign proves that you weren’t taking sufficient notice of the road, which is a crime in itself. I have heard of many people claiming they didn’t see the speed sign. If the sign wasn’t obscured then if its not rejected out of hand they get charged with somehting like “dangerous driving” or “driving without due care” instead. Much more serious offences.
If the problem is, in fact JW, and only JW, do what I did. Look up the phone number for the local Kingdom Hall and tell them, in quiet, conversational tones that you would rather burn in hell than spend all eternity in a heaven full of JW!
Then ask them, polietly, to ask their missonaries to stop witnessing at your door. I’ve never been bothered since. Not once. And if they all think I’m crazy, dangerous or both, so much the better!
Can you perform a citizen’s arrest on a trespasser without getting arrested yourself? Maybe not, but how do bouncers manage to avoid being thrown in the slammer for life as incorrigible repeat felons? Also, consider a building that has security guards and an electronically locked door that requires an ID badge to open. If someone storms into the lobby, begins pounding on the locked door, and screams “Let me in, you fuckers! I’m a customer! I demand to speak to your company president right now!”, are the security guards allowed to actually do anything? I mean, they’ll call the police too, but surely they don’t just have to wait?
There are cases, as I pointed out before, generally supporting the right to use reasonable force to expel a trespasser from your property, which is what bouncers do. The controversial part is detaining the trespasser once he sees the wisdom of leaving. There are cases supporting citizen’s arrests by private security personnel for criminal trespass, under such circumstances, although most of the cases I’ve seen involved special criminal trespass laws that apply to commercial establishments or those caught in places where they didn’t belong (like in an apartment that didn’t belong to them.)
I guess that settles it then. ivn1188 dixit.
By responding you agree to pay me so much is just silly. You do not own this board and you have nothing you can give away here. But if the owners of the board said “to post here you have to pay $15” do you think that would be enforceable? Yes, I know it is just a hipothetical situation which could never happen in real life.
Since the law clearly recognizes my right to be undisturbed if I so wish and does not recognize an absolute right on your part to disturb me I can’t see how I cannot charge for the privilege of disturbing me. On what grounds would that be unenforceable?