I would assume this varies from state to state, but generally speaking…
Let’s say I’m hiking through a wooded area and I see a “No Trespassing” sign on (what I believe is) private property. And I walk past the sign and continue hiking. Have I committed a crime?
I have always been under the impression that I am only guilty of trespassing if I refuse to leave a property when verbally told to do so, regardless if signs are posted. True?
Trespassing is a highly complex law, it varies a great deal by state, and most states subdivide it into several classes. In most states, it can even be a felony. Texas and Florida are notorious for the teeth in their trespass laws.
I can’t imagine a place where signs do not count as a warning. In Florida, No Trespassing signs should be 500 ft apart or less and at each corner. Letters should be at least 2". That’s your warning! Also, a fence or cultivated barrier counts as well.
I would be surprised to learn of a state that allows people to just run around in other peoples’ property as long as the owner isn’t there to ask them to leave. How silly.
I see you’re in Ohio and it’s all laid out very clearly in Statute 2911.21, Criminal Trespass. Specifically, 2911.21(A)(4), where it says: Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or** refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place** or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either."
The next part (D)(1) says "Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. "
So there you go, it’s pretty clear. You might be able to dig deeper and see how ‘conspicuous’ is defined, but if you’re hiking and the sign is right there on the trail and it’s pretty clear someone doesn’t want you on the other side of that sign, they probably won’t have to do much convincing of the officer/judge.
“No Trespassing” is 4/17’s of a haiku …
Good post. Likely nitpick, but someone could glance at your bolding, miss the preceding “or”, and think that emphasizes “refusal to leave” over “being on the land.”
No.
At least, “No,” in Virginia, where Code § 18.2-119 provides that a posted “No Trespassing” sign can provide the requisite legal notice. (Although to secure a conviction the Commonwealth must prove both the existence of the signage and that the signs were lawfully posted by a person having the authority to do so; see Baker v. Commonwealth, 685 SE 2d 661 (Va 2009) for discussion).
Not silly at all. In South America (at least where I lived in rural Bolivia), people are free to follow the shortest easiest path from A to B, climbing over fences (rock walls) if applicable. Where people walk everywhere, often many miles, shortcuts are an important part of life. The fact that I “own” land does not by itself give me the right to resctrict movement.
[literary note:]
“Trickspissers vil be pairsecluded.”
(Finnegans Wake. And yes, two girls who think they are alone pee in a park and the peeper a) feels like they knew they were teasing him and b) knows or is supposed to know he will be taken to court.
[/literary note]
At any point must the boundary line be conspicuous so I know what area constitutes trespassing? How do I know that 30 feet left of the sign is still your property?
In my area (rural)…
So far as committing a crime, only if the owner of the property calls the police/sheriff and presses charges. Some property is owned by the government/military. And in that case, the police may take action against you if they catch you. That action may just be a warning or legal charges.
Also you can be “trespassed” off a property where there are no signs. Then if you return, you can be charged with trespassing. Retail businesses in my area do this to shoplifters - say they can’t return to the store EVER!
So far as rural land and no trespassing signs, in my area, there are two reasons generally these signs are there.
People who have been on the property in the past have littered and made a mess, not taken their garbage out with them. (This has been happening a LOT in the last several years due to a new batch of selfish-thoughtless people.) So visitors are no longer welcome. If they catch anyone on the property, they will call the police and press charges.
Liability. They don’t care if you are on the property. But if you are on the property and get hurt, this gives them added protection should you try to sue them for your injuries.
That depends on the laws in your state or country. Look them up or tell us where you are.
I’m not sure how. I bolded that part because the OP asked about signage, but the "or’ and and ‘refusal to leave’, so far as I can tell meant that if you wander on to my land and happen to see a ‘no trespassing’ sign, you have to exit my property. If you ‘refuse to leave’ upon seeing the sign OR ‘negligently fail’*, you’re trespassing and guilty of said crime.
*I’m guessing that ‘negligently fail’ would mean that you’re not even trying to leave. That is, if I call the cops because you’re on my land, they show up and you’re in the process of leaving (and you tell the cops you saw the sign, you’re heading out), you’re okay. OTOH, if you say ‘durp, I was just leaving’, but it’s clear you’re not, you’re still trespassing.
But, either way, a sign is what the OP asked for and a sign is what the OP got. It should be noted that from time to time when we’ve had people arrested on our store’s property after hours (usually stealing stuff), often the cops will take pictures of any signage. ‘No trespassing’, ‘no overnight parking’, ‘[stuff in this pile that the thief will say ‘I thought it was garbage’] $30 each’ etc. It all helps to make the case. My guess is that even if a sign wasn’t legally binding, it helps if you need to make a case against someone for something.
We’ve literally had people steal stuff from our property at 2:00 in the morning and the police will ask us if there’s any kind of signage saying that those items aren’t free. :smack:
A variant I’ve seen is “Property is Posted” or some such - which I take to be a sort of meta-notice that No Trespassing signs are posted as well. “Posted” signs seem to be near roads and other obvious entry points and aimed mainly at hunters.
It’s a side topic, but dog owners should be aware that posting “Beware of Dog” signs can be considered a tacit admission that the dog/s are dangerous. Don’t post them (at least, not this wording) unless you know your dogs might attack a trespasser and you’re willing to take the argument all the way to trial. If you mean they shouldn’t come in and make Fluffy bark, and Fluffers bites them, you might find your liability increased or guaranteed.
There must be some minimum standard for determining where the property lines begin. So a single sign in the middle of the woods on a tree may not tell you exactly where the protected land is. I suppose if you are facing the sign head you could expect the other side of the tree to be someone’s posted land, but what about where you already stand, or to the left or the right of the tree?
As noted by others above, FL has some fierce antitrespassing laws. The requirement for the signs to say “posted” is kinda nebulous in the code, but the usual signs around here say “Posted no trespassing per FL statute 123.456. The <local law enforcement agency> is authorized to demand anyone leave or face arrest.”
The idea that the sign is authorizing the police to arrrest somebody seems ludicrous to me. The cops don’t need some sign’s authorization; they have it already under their general police power.
The apparent purpose is to utterly dispel any part of the “I didn’t know any better nor understand the consequences” defense. Probably the result of some sorta-confused court case from WAG 1927.
To me, too. But I don’t see that idea expressed on the sign. It’s just saying that the police are authorized, not how they came to become authorized. Presumably, the source of the authorization is FL statute 123.456 .
And am I the only one who’s ever pondered that “no trespassing” signs don’t, logically, mean what they’re intended to mean? Of course I’m not allowed to trespass: That’s part of the definition of “trespass”, and I don’t need a sign to tell me that that’s allowed. What a sign is needed for is to let me know that entering that land is trespassing. I mean, the intent is obvious, and I don’t for a moment dream that that argument would hold up in court, but it still bugs me.
Sign: “No Trespassing”
You walk, violate the sign
Buckshot in the butt
@Chronos: I agree. I’ve had the same thought.
That’s where the “posted private property” or just “private property” signs make more sense and directly address the facts: Once you know it’s private property (and not your own private property), then you ought, as a well-informed citizen, to know that continuing onto the private land is A) trespassing, and B) illegal.
Sorta like the “inflammable -> flammable” transition, we’ve gone from signs informing about facts to signs educating about law because the public is proving that confused, naïve, and clueless.
If self-driving cars don’t happen first I imagine we’ll eventually see “Speed Limit 65” signs replaced by signs saying “Speeds over 65 are illegal.”
I know Phoenix 20-30 years ago had a real problem with rampant red light running at major intersections. The lights would change then 5, 10, or more cars would barrel through anyhow. So they posted large signs at the problem intersections: “Red light means stop.” Not sure it helped, but it made a point.
Best I could do:
No trespassing is
four sev’teenths of a haiku
ellipses follow