New Criminal Trespass bill, SB159

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Rugerer, Feb 15, 2017.

  1. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    71
    48
    http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20172018/SB/159

    Saw this tweet and thought it was a hoax. What in the world??!!??

    It passed subcommittee.

    Guilty of CRIMINAL trespass if
    Anyone know what this could be about?
     
  2. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,832
    831
    113
    Gotta make Ga not a red or blue state. It has to go purple.

    Nemo
     

  3. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Yeah, there are a lot of trespassers out there and land owners want an easier way to deal with them I guess.
     
  4. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Splash of paint is cheaper than purchasing a bunch of signs.

    Search for "Purple Paint Law" on the Giggle

    Appears to mirror the Texas law almost word for word...
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  5. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    Just replaces signs with purple paint. It would make property line marking much easier, flagging is ambiguous and signs weather out pretty quickly unless you invest in metal ones, and placing metal signs every 50 feet in compliance with the legal signage requirements is expensive.
     
  6. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    71
    48
    But it doesn't replace signs. Signs were not in the law.

    The law currently provides for the offense of criminal trespass if a person:
    a) damages property or maliciously interferes with use of property
    b1) enters the land/premises for unlawful purpose
    b2) enters the land/premises after receiving notice from owner
    b3) remains on the land/premises after being told to leave

    Those are no provisions that signs/markings constitute legal notice.

    So, a bit of purple paint from up to 500 feet away should be good for a year in jail?

    There are only two locations in the law I could find that put legal consequences on a sign.

    § 20-2-1180 Loitering upon school premises
    § 51-1-43 regarding signs in a roller skating center

    https://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2327146&highlight=trespass#post2327146

    A year in jail should take more effort than a bit of pigment.
     
  7. Scout706

    Scout706 Well-Known Member

    3,596
    30
    48
    Ummm. . . I know a few color blind people, one doesn't see red. Seriously.
     
  8. psrumors

    psrumors Well-Known Member

    4,871
    47
    48
    I don't necessarily disagree but as someone who deals with trespassers on a regular basis there has to be a better way.

    Over the years I have spent well in excess of $15,000 on fencing to keep people (and animals) off my property yet at least once a month I have people on my property. I am only talking 5.5 acres and it is all maintained and cut.

    Just last Friday I had some kids open up the front gate so their dog (pit) could "play" with my German Shepherd. When my male hit their dog and pinned it to the ground by the neck they started hitting my dog to break up the fight.

    They were given notice to not return and sent on their way.

    Why in the world should they not be charged for trespassing immediately? Even without the dog, gate is closed, sign is posted do not open, what gives them the right? Why should they get a second chance? How about those that climb my fence to just cross the lot? One person climbing the fence really doesn't do damage but after so many, I have to repair the fence.

    How do I keep people off my property? I don't care to lock them up, I just want them to leave me and my place the hell alone. Respect my fence.
     
  9. Match10

    Match10 Active Member

    6,922
    4
    38
    I'm colorblind...
     
  10. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,545
    688
    113
    I suppose a law is "technically" legal, because the law presumes that every citizen reads every law, and thus can be held accountable for knowing (or negligently not knowing) that purple paint is a substitute for a "no tresspassing" sign.
    But in the real world, just about NOBODY will know this, and many people will not get any "notice" from rings of paint around the trunks of trees in the woods.
    For that reason alone, I'd oppose this law.

    Plastic "No Trespassing" signs are cheap. You can buy them in bulk for something like 25 cents each. Staple them to trees with an Arrow T50 staple gun and 3/8" or 11mm staples.
    Problem solved. Effective warning given. (Even Messicans who don't speak Engleesh will know a "NO TRESPASSING" sign when they see it).
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Are you off the opinion that plastic no trespassing signs are of the same effect that this bill gives purple lines? I'm not.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    An eight inch by one inch purple line, in some cases 1000 feet apart (almost a quarter mile).

    Is this sufficient notice to land someone in jail? Are you ok with this?
     
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,545
    688
    113
    RUGERER, this is an excellent observation:

    "Those are no[t] provisions that signs/markings constitute legal notice.

    So, a bit of purple paint from up to 500 feet away should be good for a year in jail?

    A year in jail should take more effort than a bit of pigment
    ."

    Yeah, this bill would leave the effect of a posted sign undecided, and currently most of us believe that signs are not valid "notice" to leave, delivered by a property owner or lawful occupant with authority, and communicated to the person who would be charged criminally for disregarding such notice.

    But, this law would suddenly elevate purple paint lines to a status HIGHER than traditional signs, thus that the crime of trespassing is complete without any further warning or notice??
    That would be f'ing retarded.
    But, retarded laws go with the Georgia General Assembly like peanut butter and jelly.

    LEGAL QUESTION: Would a judge, reviewing this newly-changed Code section 16-7-21 in the future, decide as a matter of "statutory construction" that the legislature must have intended traditional no trespassing signs to carry the force of law and serve as the one and only "notice" the statute required all along, because otherwise it would be absurd to let purple chalk lines have that effect?
    If that were the judge's thinking, this would be a major revision of the trespass law in Georgia, but people wouldn't even notice it if the property in question were marked with the normal types of signs as "notice."
     
  14. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,545
    688
    113
    MP, good question. I was typing my long post above while you posted your short one.
     
  15. psrumors

    psrumors Well-Known Member

    4,871
    47
    48
    Just for crossing the line? No
     
  16. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,861
    34
    48
    The purple paint thing is gaining in popularity. i believe that is the law in NC, because I trout fish in NC a lot and I know the purple marking law is spelled out in their fishing regulations.
     
  17. Marine6212

    Marine6212 Active Member

    1,142
    16
    38
    I've known about the purple paint on trees means no trespassing for about 30 years. It's been used in Arkansas for as long as I can remember. I believe the state parks were the first ones to use it.
     
  18. Match10

    Match10 Active Member

    6,922
    4
    38
    Well, go to Wyoming. There are magical lines that once crossed, can leave you very much open to a trespassing charge, with no sign whatsoever. You are expected to know upon what property you are hunting. That's why applications such as our gps property line chip are really important. Also. local ranchers try to tell you that you are trespassing on federal land or state lands too. Had a couple of run ins with the locals up there, which resulted in the ranchers going to speak to the judge.... ;)
     
  19. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    This. It is *fairly* common knowledge to those that have run around in the country woods for much of their life, but I certainly don't think that it should be used as an indicator for criminal trespass. And I do agree that the law should be modified; as illustrated above, trespassers can be a very big problem for folks that have a decent spread or own property that they can't monitor 24/7. We recently purchased a large tract of land out in "flyover country" and know that it has been used as a dump for some folks. I anticipate having issues, but thankfully it's not in Georgia, so I will be able to use the law to my advantage.
     
  20. phaed

    phaed Active Member

    9,360
    2
    38
    what would be logical is if trespassing were the default case. don't mess around on someone else's property without permission. it's like the fn do not call list. you have to be put on it for folks not to bug you. the logical default should be that no one should bug you unless you're on a DO CALL and bug me list. but, government has to justify its existence somehow.

    it's amazing that anyone should need be told this crap, but folks have become comfortable living in an upside down and backwards world.